Ok I was thinking about putting in the 3.4L soon and so I was looking around the net for some 3.4L tips. I find this site to where this guy has a 1994 3.4L camaro and here is his list of mods he did...


Hypertech Power Programmer
Hypertech 160 Degree Thermostat
Hypertech Power Pulleys
MSD 8.5 Super Conductor Wires
K&N F.I.P.K Cold Air Package
Hotchkis Strut Tower Brace
Pace Setter Headers & Exhaust Tips
3" Dynomax Catback
Ported Intake
AC Rapidfire Spark Plugs
Accel Coils
Bosch 19# Injectors
Kenne Bell Boost-a-Pump
MSD DIS-4 Ignition Box
Casper Electronics TPS Inhancer
Jet Stage 2 Module
Knock Sensor Bypass
DGM Carbon Fiber Radiator Cover
Trans-Go Shift Kit
B&M Shift Plus
3.42 Richmond Gears
95 T/A Rear Disc Brakes
Auburn LSD
Performance Friction Carbon Metallic Brake Pads
Mobile One Synthetic Gear Oil
Powerslot Rotors front and rear
Eibach Pro Springs
Hotchkis Rear Suspension Package (trailing arms, panhard rods )
99 WS6 shocks and struts
1LE front and rear sway bars
Energy Suspension Bushings and End Links
SLP Weld on Subframe Connectors


finally this is what he ran...

No nitrous on street tires 0-60 7.82 1/4 mile speed and ET 15.80 @ 90.23 mph

Is this good? I mean I expected some better numbers. Someone please clue me in.



------------------
1992 Camaro RS 3.1L
T5 Manual 5 speed
Open Air Intake
Z-28 Exhaust
8.5mm MSD Ignition wires
TB Coolant bypass

Kills:

95 (****) Probe GT
94 Mustang GT
91 CRX (dont ask me why he raced me)
2nd Gen Z28 (350) haha to you V8 guys!
More to come

 

While this person has done a lot to his car, he really doesn't have any engine mods to speak of; reprogrammed the PROM, 160* T-Stat, underdrive pullies, wires, cold air, ported intake, exhaust (no headers)...minor bolt ons only. Among hot rodders, it is still a stock engine.

So I think his times are quite good considering he has done nothing to the heads or cams and has no headers. But, until the heads and cam is done, I wouldn't expect anything near the 14s.

 

7.8 seconds is a full 2 seconds faster to 60 than a stock one did. MT tested a '94 3.4 auto and it did 0-60 in 9.7 sec. So yeah, I'd say he's doing pretty good!!

------------------
Jason E
'89 Camaro RS 2.8
Hypertech chip/K&N filters/Accel 8.8 wires,coil/RapidFires
Eclipse CD and 100x4 amp/Boston plates and 6x9s

JasonEE98 on AOL IM

 

jason, was that on a manual tranny? also, i think it said he did have pacesetter headers. Still, i'd expect more, 3.1firebird is running a 16flat, hope he sees this, i want to see a list of his mods.

 

I stand corrected, he does state he has Pace Setter Headers. But headers really don't add much on a stock motor...maybe .2 in the 1/4. It takes a lot more HP to get into the low 15s/high 14s and this engine just doesn't have the mods necessary.

Still say he needs heads and cam.

 

ah yes I believe that is Soslow's 3.4 if I;m not mistaken. He sold the car and bought an Ls1 awhile ago I heard, but that camaro looked sharp! http://members.aol.com/soslow2/index.html theres the link to his page.
I think so slow really needed a cam and a good set of heads to get him into low 15's.....he did do a 14 flat on the juice though. A thing to consider though, 4 th gens are heavier, so he might have ran a little faster if his stff was in a thirdgen.
yea I;ve ran a 16 flat at 83.7mph, but on the next run I went a 16.18 at 85.6 mph,so I think if I could get a good launch I could hit a 15.9, nd I agree with Glenn about headers, they probably give you .15-.2 off the 1/4.

 

you guys need to talk to bradkeith, his 2.8 hit a 14.9 he said.

------------------
Modified 3.4 Pacesetter headers,Crane 2020 cam,K&N cone, cat-back ,shift kit,pulleys,3.73's(openrear)
16.18@85.6 and 16.09@83.7

 

I agree with everyone else, in order to truely drop your time you're going to have to do more internal mods than bolt ons. I have a friend with a 79 Lincoln with a 400ci. He's doing everything he can to mod the hell out of the engine, meaning that he's adding all hi-performance parts, problem is (besides a 5000lbs car) that he has done nothing but bolt ons and he's not going to feel or get full potential until he adds a cam, heads, etc. Then he'll be smoking asphalt.

 

Yea that was SoSlow's maro. OOOOOOOOOOO, it was awsome! God those 4th gens with the body styling look nice! But I still like my RS's sexy *** body !

------------------
1992 Camaro RS 3.1L
T5 Manual 5 speed
Open Air Intake
Z-28 Exhaust
8.5mm MSD Ignition wires
TB Coolant bypass

Kills:

95 (****) Probe GT
94 Mustang GT
91 CRX (dont ask me why he raced me)
2nd Gen Z28 (350) haha to you V8 guys!
1992 RS 305 TBI (good race)
More to come

 

Monkie,

Don't get so excited over your car's body...you're getting way too excited!! Too much information

'85f-bird,
Yeah, that was an auto...I had (but lost) a Car and Driver '94 Camaro 3.4/5 speed test, and the 0-60 on that was 8.8.

I don't think the .9 sec can be entirely attributed to the auto though. '94s had the 4L60E, which is an awesome tranny. For some reason, for the last 20 years, C&D has always gotten faster #'s than MT. 99% of the time, C&D is faster than anyone.

 

Hehehe, sorry let me clean up some .


Anyways, if I dropped in a 3.4L would I be able to keep my T-5? Is it the same as the 93-94 ones? And what year would be the best V6 (other than the turbo year )???

------------------
1992 Camaro RS 3.1L
T5 Manual 5 speed
Open Air Intake
Z-28 Exhaust
8.5mm MSD Ignition wires
TB Coolant bypass

Kills:

95 (****) Probe GT
94 Mustang GT
91 CRX (dont ask me why he raced me)
2nd Gen Z28 (350) haha to you V8 guys!
1992 RS 305 TBI (good race)
More to come

 

Alright I went to SDPC2000 and I found this..... HT 3.4L V6 Engine Horsepower: 160hp @ 5,000 rpm
Torque: 194 ft/lbs @ 2,700 rpm

Upgrade your tired 2.8 V6 with the bolt in HT 3.4 replacement.

Would this be a good idea? I thought so but one thing that I would be worried about is would there be any mods for it???


------------------
1992 Camaro RS 3.1L
T5 Manual 5 speed
Open Air Intake
Z-28 Exhaust
8.5mm MSD Ignition wires
TB Coolant bypass

Kills:

95 (****) Probe GT
94 Mustang GT
91 CRX (dont ask me why he raced me)
2nd Gen Z28 (350) haha to you V8 guys!
1992 RS 305 TBI (good race)
More to come

 

I think it'd be a good one, sound alright. As far as the greatest producing tq for a 2.8L it's the 1985, yeah buddy, with that extra 5lbs of t.q. But that 3.4 sounds really good. I also think you T5 should be able to stay. It should have the same bolt pattern as our 2.8/3.1's. But, you might want to have the tranny condition checked out, because you'll have more power going to an old tranny than it has ever had before.

 

Monkie,

That motor sounds like the exact one offered in the GM Performance Parts catalog. SUPPOSEDLY, its a direct replacement for an '82-'85 S10 with a 2bbl carb. Now, no one has ever told me why this motor cannot be used in a Camaro, so hell, I'd find out the price and go for it!! The one question I do have for anyone who may know is, is this motor emissions legal for a later '80s fbody? Is there any reason why it wouldn't be??

Keep in mind Monkie that because this engine is meant for a 2bbl carb, the 160hp should be higher if our MPFI setup is used! However, you would need 19 lb/hr injectors rather than whatever the stock 2.8/3.1 ones are.

 

oooooooooooo, thats right I didnt think of the extra HP from our FIers. How much you think we could get? Oh and how would you find mods for this car? Like cam and etc...


------------------
1992 Camaro RS 3.1L
T5 Manual 5 speed
Open Air Intake
Z-28 Exhaust
8.5mm MSD Ignition wires
TB Coolant bypass

Kills:

95 (****) Probe GT
94 Mustang GT
91 CRX (dont ask me why he raced me)
2nd Gen Z28 (350) haha to you V8 guys!
1992 RS 305 TBI (good race)
More to come

 

Gotta search around dude....and I'll be honest. I wouldn't open this motor up. Throw some nice bolt ons onto it and be done. If you open it up and throw a cam in it, you'll void GMPP's 3 yr/50,000 mile warranty that comes with the engine.

Oh yeah, thats another good thing about this engine...WARRANTY

As for a HP estimate, it would depend how far you go with bolt ons. I'd say some nice ones could get you 180+hp, but I could be very wrong too!!