V6 mods
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1 V6
Transmission: 700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23
Re: V6 mods
pretty much if your budget allows you should turbo it cause that is where you will get the most significant gains...
if you are like me and cant afford that then you are outta luck lol
if you are like me and cant afford that then you are outta luck lol
Re: V6 mods
Why not drop in a 3.4 liter out of the 93-95 camaros and firebirds? There is plenty of information on these boards and even a tech article about how to do this. It is very straightforward, and will give you more gains stock than you are likely to get with a lightly modified 3.1 liter. The 3.4 liter was 160 HP and 200 ft-lbs of torque. The 3.1 stock was only 140, and I think the 2.8 was only 135.
Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
From: Northeast CT
Car: '89 IROC-Z
Engine: LSx
Transmission: T-56
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: V6 mods
If you already have a 2.8 please save yourself the time and money and dont put a 3.1 in, onces MAF onces MAP, which means ECM's need to be swapped, not to mention your talking 5hp 15ft/lbs, not even noticable, the 3.4 is the same block as the 2.8/3.1 which means if you can get a whole motor with ECM its pretty much a direct swap with minor modifications. If you decide to stay 2.8 then you can put a bigger cam in it, better exhaust, upper end port, you would be lucky to get in the ballpark of what a 3.4 makes stock. Like said before a turbo is the only way to make significant power. I was going to stay 2.8 and turbo it but the more and more I read a 3.4/3400 hybrid is the way to go. Just do some searching, use the search feature, it may not be the best but you will find info. James
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,370
Likes: 19
Car: 1973 Datsun 240Z/ 1985 S-15 Jimmy
Engine: Turbo LX9/To be decided
Transmission: 5-speed/T-5
Axle/Gears: R200 3.90/7.5" 3.73
Re: V6 mods
The engine doesn't care if there's a MAF attached to the intake tract or not. The 3.1 can be installed using the 2.8 electronics without an issue.
I do agree however that the 3.4 would be a better platform to start with, if an engine swap is in mind.
I do agree however that the 3.4 would be a better platform to start with, if an engine swap is in mind.
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Corpus Christi
Car: 1992 Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1 V6
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: Stock
Re: V6 mods
Anybody have a good idea about how much gain you will get on the 3.1 with a performance cam setup, and a port and polish on the heads and intake?
Trending Topics
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Corpus Christi
Car: 1992 Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1 V6
Transmission: Auto
Axle/Gears: Stock
Re: V6 mods
Have you read the sticky Considering an engine swap? There is some good info in there about the 3.4 swap. you should check it out, thoses guys know what they are talking about.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,574
Likes: 0
From: right behind you
Car: '85 maro
Engine: In the works...
Transmission: TH700 R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73 posi
Re: V6 mods
Why would you swap a whole 3.1 in when you can just switch the crank & pistons? Better yet just swap in a 3.4 short block. You don't need to change ecm's either, stock will work fine with a 3.4 or 3.1- although tuning is always a good idea.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,370
Likes: 19
Car: 1973 Datsun 240Z/ 1985 S-15 Jimmy
Engine: Turbo LX9/To be decided
Transmission: 5-speed/T-5
Axle/Gears: R200 3.90/7.5" 3.73
Re: V6 mods
You need to remove the engine from the car anyway to swap the internals.
It would be much quicker and quite possibly cheaper to swap a complete long block.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post






