Fallen2603

WOW...only 20lbs heavier with the iron heads? I don't feel so bad about going with an iron-headed 3.4L V6 anymore.

I was thinking these springs:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/MOG-5606/
...and these shocks:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/KYB-735001/
...for the front-end.

And these springs:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/MOG-5665/
...and these shocks:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/KYB-743019/
...for the rear-end.

I kind of like how the car sits "stock". Well, that, and less chance of scraping every speed-bump I have to drive over. Just my preferance...

Project 3.4 Camaro

Uh...probably 20 lbs a piece, and aluminum heads outflow full race port iron heads...they can go higher rpm on stock valve springs before float too I believe. Aluminum is basically close to half the weight of cast iron.

Fallen2603

Okay, 20lbs a piece then. Still not bad.

Yes, I'm aware that the 2.8/3.x iron heads don't flow nearly as well as the 3x00 heads. Plan on making up for that with some boost. We'll see what happens...

Project 3.4 Camaro

Yeah but it all adds up, aluminum heads, AC delete, hatch glass replaced with lexan, fiberglass hood, probably 200 lbs of weight reduction right there

Fallen2603

The plan is right now to do the A/C delete, every window replaced with lexan, and a fiberglass one-piece front-clip. I feel okay taking a 40lb hit with the iron heads...

Project 3.4 Camaro

You mean that $1k fiberglass thing o.O? If you're going that far, might as well do the heads man,lol. Besides, its more power! btw, Idk if its different there but I know that here in PA I can't get a lexan windshield, just a heads up something you should check before getting one, now if its a dedicated non road legal drag car, go for it. Sure wish it wasn't illegal, doesn't even make sense either, they claim its for safety and that a lexan windshield will flex at speed, but they put them on race cars.......which are far more accident and speed prone, so wtf...never did understand that bs, if its good enough for a race car, its good enough for a road car.....

firstfirebird

iTrader: (3)

Dreams.

I weighed the difference between the iron and aluminum top ends, over 40lbs difference,

back on topic peeps...

Fallen2603

Yeah, just under $1,000. Lexan is legal here in IL for all windows. If I don't like the power output with the iron heads, I can always swap 3x00 heads on there with twin turbo's...

My apologies to Purple82TA and firstfirebird. I'm done being off topic...

Guest

1)Lexan needs a center windsheild support beam= hinders veiw on the street.

2) Lexan is prone for scratching. Even the expensive 2 sided scratch resistant lexan still scratches over time.= hinders veiw on the street

3)Auto design incorporates the windsheild glass as part of the safety structure of the vehicle. without it the vehicle is more prone to cockpit collapse. Race cars design there structure onb the chassis cage structure alone= safety hazard for the oocupants

4) Lexan yellows ovr time= hinder veiw. Look at the rear convertable windows, they scratch yellow and crack over time. Image that as your front windsheild trying to look out it.

Racecar windshields have an average life of about 1 season if lucky. They are often damaged in crashes. We went through 3 in 2008.

Purple...WOW!....you have me looking at a LZ9 or a LX9 now for my '67 Mini Cooper project. Looking at that TCE website and the retro's they suppies for the MG conversions is fantastic. I want a 300 hp V6 for this car with just an alternator to be driven by the crank. That intake setup is down right gorgeous and I am sure will be much more fuctional than the incredible Falconer units were due to modern computer technology.

I will be following your progress. Wish I had that kind of powerplant in my old V6- I could not due such a thing though due to local smog laws. My hands were always tied on the motor.

Guest

GM race motors in the Mickey Thompson Sires offroad stadium trucks were getting 1.5hp per cubic inch out of the iron head motors back in the 80's. Thats 1.5 x 173cu (2.8 motor size restrictions via rules) = 260hp out of a 2.8l 60*V6 natualy asperated. Check the old GM power manuals. I forget the flow #'s they had but they were pretty good for a little motor. The intake manifold angle and the shape of the port humps were the key to good suction velocity. Unfortunately, noone had good data on these other than SuperSix racing who did bench flow work on these- no one bought them so Supersix discontinued making them due to the little motors just being overlooked by anyone but the younger broke crwd that overbearingly owns V6 3rd gens- not a bash, just a fact. It is more expensive to do and most swaped for a v8 not carring about how well these cars handle with the smaller more rearward set motor weight. My car was a shining example on how these cars can handle and what they car achevie with a lightweight nose.

firstfirebird

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, but add 30 years of experience on GM's end and add that to the equation. The iron head blocks themselves have been proven to be the weak link in making real power from the early 660's.

Dave's (purple) has already shown us what the 3500 can do, over 270WHP. I sold a 3500 block to a fellow Floridian last year who races Midget cars, and they were able to extract well over 300hp from a 3.4 Camaro block highly modified (itb's, bbc valvetrain, over 14:1 cr etc) but the blocks were cracking in the valley. He was literally speechless when I showed him some examples of the 3500 heads compared to the 3400 castings he was using. Last year they ran the 340hp iron duke (bbc head) and plan on having the 3500 in this year, really need to catch back up with them.

Not a fair comparison, but it took me well over 40hours of work to get some 3800 heads (similar design to the 660 iron, without the hump in the floor) on the flow bench, just to touch/barely-supersede stock numbers the 3500 heads flow.

Not to get too far off topic again, but if you add a late-model engine in the vehicle in Cali, wouldn't you just have to fill the constraints of the newer motor?

Project 3.4 Camaro

The blocks were cracking from constant running at high rpms right? Not because of the actual power output, and on that note, I know that 3x00 blocks have webbing in the lifter valley, anyway a 3.4 could have metal welded in like that I wonder...

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

The sad thing is that you could get those numbers out of stock GM parts now (aside form the cam).

Project 3.4 Camaro

on which 60*6? Seems a little optimistic for something like a 3.4 hybrid with just a cam...

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Gen3 3100 (year 2000 or newer) with a 2.8 crank and RWD flat top pistons. Pick up a roller cam from wot-tech and slap on a 3500 upper intake and a pair of the good 3500 exhaust manifolds.


With a stock cam that shows 200 HP @ 5500 RPM and 237 TQ @ 3500.

With the old WOT street/strip cam it goes up to 265 HP @ 7500 and 229 TQ @ 5500.

Those are with stock gen3 port flow numbers.


With ported heads (numbers from a set that i did a while back off of my own flow bench)

208 HP @5500 and 241 TQ @ 3500
272 HP @7500 and 235 TQ @ 5000


Not bad for 2.8 liters... port flow and cam design is the key.

Project 3.4 Camaro

Cams can do that much o.O how big a cam we talking? And it sounds like you have desktop dyno or similar software?

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

.517 intake lift
.538 exhaust lift

278 intake advertised
286 exhaust advertised

112 LSA/108 intake centerline

Yes, just an old version of desktop dyno. There are other programs that are a lot more accurate but this gives you a general idea. So far every engine i've designed in it has been very close on a real dyno.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

This project hasn't died yet.. I've got a huge box of stuff coming from Summit tomorrow to hopefully wrap up the first phase of this swap before the snow starts falling.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

ITB's are installed, fuel lines are hooked up, 99% of the wiring is hooked up, might need to find a 3.4 timing cover and water pump though. the outlet on the 2.8 cover sits way too close to the 3500 block, i can't get a hose clamp around the lower rad hose.


Anyone have a picture of how the plug wires are routed on a 4th gen 3.4?

Project 3.4 Camaro

I have an extra 3.4 TC from when I was planning a hybrid swap...well now I have a 3.4 in my car so obviously don't need it,lol, pm me if interested, you should know that the timing cover requires the use of a 3.4 oilpan as well though.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

It requires the use of an '87 or newer pan.

Dave has a 3500, so the 3.4 plan will not even come close to working.

mars061

Got any pics of this ?? Can the block be cut there? I never encountered anything with my 3400 block....

KrisW

iTrader: (5)

I am now subscribed, even though I favor the Buick variant of V6 engines (and boost over N/A) to get me down the road.

Last question; why not run an OBD2 PCM? Aren't they way more tune-able than the old GM ECMs?

Keep up the good work, it looks great!!

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The OBD1 Delco ECMs are MUCH more supported in the DIY community than the OBD2 PCMs.

The only "advantage", and I use that word loosely, is that the OBD2 has SFI, and ways to run hybrid fueling based on both MAF and MAP. There are some other features, but not sure I would only refer to them as "features".

I use the OBD1 Delco ECMs in many of my conversions, most commonly, the '7730 and '7749. I do use the '7747 on occasion and lately the '16197427 ECM.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

yah, a MAF isn't going to help me at all here.. lol

OBD1 is very cheap to tune and you don't have to deal with that credits BS that the OBD2 guys have. I run $A1 mask and have the complete code disassembly so i can adjust anything and everything if needed.



the timing cover situation is solved, i just took the die grinder to the webbing on the front of the block and gave the hose the clearance needed. 4th gen lower hose is installed with the Summit radiator hose adapters and some radiator hose repair pieces from the parts store. It's not perfect but i'm not building a show car. I picked up an upper hose for some unknown car off the back wall at the store as well, it fits pretty good and should work.


the MFBA rented the local track on the 6th, i might just have to try to make it out there. Just a lot of small things left to take care of so it might be possible.

KrisW

iTrader: (5)

That's good enough for me!

I keep hearing about running LS1 PCMs for better tune-ability, and I have seen in GM Hi-Tech Performance Mag a guy who makes a kit to run an LS1 PCM on a TPI and it seems to dyno better. Would you say that is because of things like one coil per plug technology or something else?

I am NOT trying to flame or argue; I am seriously trying to decide what PCM/ECM to use for my future builds. I have not programmed either style, only troubleshot them when they are having problems.

Thanks for the inputs.. I think I'll ask a question in the ECM section and see what happens.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

COP, or even just DIS will have better (read hotter) spark than a dizzy system, due to less gaps to to jump and less wire to travel through with higher capable dwell time. I would say this does have an effect on emissions, driveablity and over all power production.

DIS has been used on 6 cylinders and 8 cylinders using OBD1 ECMs.

I'm currently running a '7749 with $59 and DIS on my Datsun, running a Nissan 2.8L inline 6 that I have also turbocharged.

I will be working on using DIS on a couple V8s that my Grandfather owns, one being in a 1971 Chev pick and the other being a 1923 Ford T-bucket Street Rod, with a SBC in it and Hilborn style fuel injection. I plan to use Northstar DIS for the 8s.

The fun thing about the OBD1 ECMs is that they are, for the most part, very documented and some, such as the '7730/'7749/'7727 style ECMs can all share code and run different code than they were originally intended to use. Have a supercharged application that needs a water resistant ECM, easy, run $58 or $59 in a '7727. Have a multiport application that doesn't need water resistant ECM, run something like $8D in a '7730. Does it have low-Z injectors? Run that same $8D in a '7749 set up to run in peak and hold mode (small hardware modification needed to do that).

Tuning programs are free or close to, and lots of information around to use them.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

it's just a few wires away from starting but i have a few questions that i'll post as i go.


#1.. can someone with an 89 ish Camaro look at the bulkhead connector on the drivers side, there are a few thick red wires running out and one thick pink one. Anyone know what the pink one goes to?

#2. My wiring diagram shows the '89 V6 Camaro as only using a oil pressure switch (dummy light) and not a gauge. This cluster has the pressure gauge in it and the 3 wire plug, normal or not? If it's a V8 tach this could get interesting. lol


There will probably be more tomorrow..

Thanks


BTW, scored an aluminum driveshaft for $75. Going to pick it up in the morning.

Dale

iTrader: (12)

I think the thick pink one goes to the coil.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Yes, Pink is ignition.

Project 3.4 Camaro

"#2. My wiring diagram shows the '89 V6 Camaro as only using a oil pressure switch (dummy light) and not a gauge. This cluster has the pressure gauge in it and the 3 wire plug, normal or not? If it's a V8 tach this could get interesting. lol"

Not sure what you are asking about this 3 wire plug...for the oil pressure gauge to work right, you just drop in the new cluster, pull the oil pressure switch, and drop in a sending unit, and plug it into the same connector. And if you went from full idiot lights to gauges, you have to do the same thing with the temperature switch/fan relay for that to work as well.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Sweet, i'll use that to power the ICM then.


As for the OPSU I'll have to look over the diagrams again then, this one kinda sucks.. lol

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Got the wiring all sorted out, only took a few more hours.

No gas in the tank but i dumped a little gas in each stack and it fired right up for all of 3 seconds. I then got some awesome blue flames and a sweet backfire.


I'm going to pick up a few gallons tomorrow and get a proper video.

Project 3.4 Camaro

reminds me of my first few test fires of the 3.4 with open headers.....lit the fricking ground on fire....I freaked the hell out, dove under my car with my haynes manual(the closest flailable object) and started flailing at it like a maniac.....I was not going to let my shiny new 3.4 be destroyed by a fire...best use I ever got out of my haynes...

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

I hooked my exhaust up just to avoid that.. lol

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Say hello to around 350 HP of ITB injected fun...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1v-2fMvH34

Project 3.4 Camaro

did you dyno it???

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Haha.. no, i will next spring though.


When the engine was in the Cavalier it put down 275 WHP.. That was before more porting, better headers and the ITB's.

Figure 15% loss from the old manual trans and it was around 320HP @ the crank. 330-350HP is a reasonable estimate considering the increased port flow and better intake setup.


BTW, using the pink coil wire to power the ICM was a bad idea.. the engine still runs with the key off

Project 3.4 Camaro

Lol...

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

Ive never put much stock in V6's but thats flat out awesome

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Pillsbry10

iTrader: (1)

that sounds pretty good at idle... i want to hear some higher rpm sounds though. mine sounds great till you get it up there a bit too

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

you can hear it hit 7K in this clip.. http://www.youtube.com/user/whitelig.../7/vCdRKvMlmck

different car and different exhaust but same engine.

Maverick H1L

iTrader: (8)

Did you figure this out yet? If not, I recommend double checking the connection at the C100 by the brake booster...

http://www.austinthirdgen.org/mkport..._1989_C100.gif

And also the connections at C207 by the ECM.
http://www.austinthirdgen.org/mkport..._1989_C207.gif

The ignition key should cut power to all of the pink wires in both connectors when turned off. Could be that something is jerry-rigged to a constant power source (wrong hole). Or the ignition switch needs to be adjusted.

bl85c

iTrader: (2)

I wish mine sounded like that. Pretty cool man, let's get those dyno numbers! Damn, I need to get mine turbocharged!

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

When i bought the car the old owner warned me that it had a slow battery drain, the pink wire was probably the cause.

It's all packed away for the winter now, i'll sort out the gremlins next spring.

Thanks for the links.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Back to work on this finally...

i ran new braided stainless fuel line today and got that all hooked up and got the old leaking steel line removed. I'm hoping to get the wiring sorted out in the next few weeks, bleed the brakes and take it for a test drive by the end of next month. It needs an alignment bad as well.

I still need to figure out the air filter situation for my stacks. After talking with Hilborn i wasn't too impressed with what they have to offer, and the K&N setup is way too expensive and wouldn't fit.

Project 3.4 Camaro

I would try to adapt a round or oval filter designed for carbed cars, but I am surprised you couldn't just find some small round filters to clamp onto each stack, I would think there must be some out there that would fit...

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

There are small ones that would fit however they don't have the surface area to provide enough flow.


Right now i'm looking at a few different options, gotta do dome more math before i start fabbing up anything though...

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Just a small update, it moved under it's own power today


got a bunch of wiring issues fixed, did a ******* alignment, pumped through all new brake fluid, filled up the trans and burped the cooling system. Still have a lot of loose ends to tie up but it'll be on the street very soon.