Well i got some time last night and built a engine (3.1L). The car was listed at 3121lbs - according to the manufactures books this is the weight on a 91. Listed driver at 245lbs. I got a best of 14.7 and got the program to list it as a perfect match - that means all parts work together perfectly. So i thought once again i would share the combo as its always debated. Check back after i print the engine out and list it

David

 

Ok.... here it is.... a 14.68 3.1L engine in a 91 firebird.... Slicks are used.

Driver 245Lbs
Car 3121lbs
Tires - 245/50/15 - REAR
4.11 gear - posi (traction at excellant)
Intake - Ported and polished.
TB - light port and polish - 264 to 333CFM
Heads - ported and polished - exhaust side, light work on intake side. Stock HO heads and valve sizes (171/143)
1.52 roller rockers
Freeflowing exhast system - high flow cat
Headers - NONE!!!
3500 RPM stall convertor
Cam: PAW #10361 - 280/290 214/224 at .050 .443/.465 112 lobe sep....
Compression - 8.9:1 with hyperutectic pistons
Jet Stage 2 chip
Crank pully - CRANK ONLY!

Needs 93 octane to run it, anything less WILL hurt the engine!!!

Listed at: at 14.68ET at 88.9mph
Now the NOS - 13.74ET at 96mph - listed at 100hp shot, to much gear however, 75hp should be about right.

There ya go all

 

thats AWESOME! Thanx for taking the time to type that out Red91bird .....Wayne

 

hey Red91bird , what kinda ignition was used ?

 

what program do you use to do this?? where can one get it???

------------------
Derek Johsnon
90 red rs 3.1 Mods--hypertech thermomaster chip, 160 degree thermostat, and K&N filter
Soon coming: compucam 3020, 1.52 rocker arms, 3.73 posi, and msd 6a
I Live my life a quarter mile at a time(the fast in the furious), only it takes me like 18 seconds to do it in this v6!!!

 

hmm.. Makes me want ot pull my heads and go to town and see what happens... Also sounds like a good time to rebuild the top end...

 

I am using dragstrip Plus, its a desktop dyno and was the program that built my last 3.1L - it is VERY accurate too, called my engine within three tenths on the G-tech, called a 15.15, i ran 14.8... The ignition used was a MSD 6AL with the 6K pill and a MSD coil. The engine listed above is OPTIMIZED... meaning everything is in sync with everything else. The stall the gears and the tires HAVE to be used or you WILL throw the engine off. Change 1 thing and everything else goes off kilter. This is what you all have heard me talk about in old world engine building - build to work with everything else. Anyways hope that helps


DAvid

 

Forgot to add the injectors...

22Lbs minimum.... Use the step above if you plan on NOS....




[This message has been edited by Red91Bird (edited August 01, 2001).]

 

Hmmm, have you tried it with a lil' more compression?? 8.9:1 is pretty much stock...I'd like to see what maybe +.3 or +.4 would do...

 

yeah, and why would an engine with that low of compression need 93 octane??

 

going from 16lbs injectors to 22lbs injectors without upgrading you computer i wonder if it will even run.i know on the diy prom burning board someone told me that chevy guys that go from 19lbs stock injectors to 22 or 24 lbs have allot of problems with it. i dont know if im right but i believe that you should go only 10% above stock unless your going to do your own chips i think it will run real rich if at all. thats just my o2 maybe some one can shed more light on this.

 

now that i think of it going 6lbs up on injectors i dont think it will even start.
the computer wont be able to compensate. can some one answer this?

 

Redbird, some here are making a good point about the size of your injectors. They may be a little to large for your application. Based on the 'Engine Analyzer' program I'm using by 'Performance Trends' it sems that way anway. Here is a brief analysis of my motor, a 3.4L taken with porting/polishing work and a larger bore TB:

### 3.4L Ported/Polished heads Normally Asperated######

----------------------Analysis Report ------------------------------
Analysis Report

Peak Tq = 227.0 @ 3700 RPM 1.086 Ft Lbs per CuIn
Peak HP = 176.0 @ 4780 RPM 0.842 HP per CuIn

Maximum Exhaust System Backpressure 'EX PRS' is 2.1 ''Hg.
This is typical for a street/strip vehicle with a free flowing, full exhaust system. Simulate open headers by setting EXH SYSTEM CFM RATING = 100000 in the EXHAUST SYSTEM menu.


Maximum Fuel Flow 'FL FLW' is 96.1 lbs/hr GAS.
This is equal to 16.4 gallons per hour of fuel flow.
For an injected engine with one injector per cylinder, you will require at least 16 lbs/hr injectors.

Also, your compression ratio should allow you to run less octane without experiencing detonation, although it doesn't hurt. Octane rating, as you probably know, is based on it's reluctance to detonate prematurely.



[This message has been edited by x55Cam (edited August 02, 2001).]

 

If one were to do all this work, i think a custom chip is pretty much required for the engine to run.

 

Yes a custom chip will need to be burned, when i built my 3.1L i used form injectors and had the chiped chassis dyno tuned. Not sure if the program glitched on the injector size but it did say 22Lbs minimum without NOS. I kept the compression low as to stay away from 500+ dollar custome slugs, you can get stock compression pistons cheaper. If you bump compression up it will change the gearing and stall. I can play with it tho and see if i can get a perfect match using 9.0 to 9.5 compression I got a peak hp in the 238hp range, i forgot what the torque was. All shifts were made in the 5500 to 5800 rpm range. The fuel was listed at 93 altho you can use 91 - i prefer to stay 2 ranges up from minimum for safety sake - plus use NOS and you will need 93 - i am a juice nut lol.


David

 

problem is that there are no custom chips avalible for our cars if you upgraded your injectors i called ed wright at fastchip and he said he hasnt hacked the injector location
offset or flow rate constants and doesnt know any one that can. even hypertech superchip or jet cant do it either the only other course is to look into it yourself for a prom burner ect,,,,,,,,

 

There are shops around that can do it, most likely tho you will need to do it yourself. Find a shop that has a dyno and have them dyno tune it, expect to pay alot tho


David

 

I'm really curious as to how you arrived at that HP figure. With the mods that you have made and the cam I get calcualtions of :

------ PROJECTED PERFORMANCE -------
RPM____1000_1540_ 2080__2620__3160 _3700_4240_4780_5320_5860
BRK TQ__107__141__169___196 ___213__215__ 209__196 _167__139
BRK HP__20.4__41.5__66.8__97.6__128__155___169__175__169__155




Now I used basically the same Port/head work numbers as in the 3.4L but used your TB and cam. Same exhaust set-up. If headers were used HP jumps up to 185.
Maybe I'm missing something?



[This message has been edited by x55Cam (edited August 02, 2001).]

 

Different programs? not sure, what i do know is i used this program to build my last 3.1L and it was 3 teeths off predicted, on the low side. You might have the timing off? or not doing enough to the heads for flow on the exhuast side. Gears and stall make a BIG diff altho not in HP figures. Not sure i would have to see the programs side by side to figure it out.


David

 

well, in a few monthes my engine build up is going to begin..........its gonna be a 3.4 with higher compression (hopefully 11.0 to 1).........i'm also gonna get the heads and intake ported.........where can i get a good cam for this?????and which crane rockers should i use.......>????i need some DEFINITE answers here...........also this computer is what is gonna kill me...........anybody wanna make me a custom chip?????? hehe.......i can pay good money!!!!! ha!!!!

oh yeah, i'm gonna use forged pistons so i can run nitrous....... should i upgrade the rodz too?? or will the stock ones handle a 90 HP shot????

 

Redbird, you actually ran 1/4 mile times and found that the program was within 3 tenths? That's pretty decent.

My program dosn't rely on timing; strictly raw data from components such as cam; compression ratio; port flow and efficiency; engine CU; Valve sizes, headers or stock exhaust, etc. No gearing or stall stuff, strictly BRK HP. This is an enigine analyzer so its focus is strictly for calculating HP at the flywheel w/ or without accessories.

I'm very sure that the port work was done corectly. Why? Because I didn't do it, a proffessional machinest did!

He also performed the flow tests for the intake/exhaust and larger TB. The data and HP
calculations are posted here:

http://users.spec.net/home/emxjc/flow_bench.html


I still have some fixing to do with this page but most of the info is all there.


I agree that gears and stall add to the equation, but of course, it does not add horsepower, just utilizes it to it's potential. Thats one aspect that your dyno software takes into consideration. Maybe thats where the differences lie? Does the result say "BRK HP"?

You should be aware though that no matter what port work you do, if you don't make changes to the TB, you negate all the work you did for better flow. That stock TB at 2.125" is a piece of dog doo polished or not. Think seriously about upping to a bigger one.

This is all just my opinion if course. Everyone has their wills and ways.

 

Mine reads ALL aspects of the engine, gears, stall, nos (if used) headers, exhuast ect ect ect. IT tells me engine hp and tq, AND wheel hp and tq. IT grades everything and will tell you what is over kill or under kill. If you can get all parts into a range of 100% to 115% it will tell you its a perfect combo and will read out the stats - if not it will tell you how you can get the combo to work. It even reads/asks for wheel diameter - which as we all know effects stall and gearing - which effect the cam you use which effects flow - its all connected - thats why when you get a good engine builder to build a engine its strong. However that said you pay for the knowledge - not the parts used cause to tell ya the truth its not expensive to build HP - its hard to do SMARTLY.


David

 

i was looking in old posts and i found this. i thought i would bring it back. it would make us 2.8 and 3.1 guys feel better about there cars. yes they do have potential.

 

woooohooooo a 14.7

9 out of 10 new cars can outrun that nowadays

 

Why do you even bother to come to the V6 boards to do nothing but say things like that?? I don't see how that helped the topic...?

 

10 out of 10 cars nowadays cost 5- 10 times as much as our cars do. I'd personally rather invest $5k more into a $5K car = $10K and beat the sh*t out of a new car for $20-$30K!

Plus my insurance and registation are less expensive, and I have a car that someone else can not buy exactly the same from a dealer.(I talking after the mods)

 

i cant see the excitement in spending alot of $$ into a V6 when you can invest alot less and get better performance with something else

which is why i am mad as hell at myself.............because i bought this V6 car in the first place.........i feel like an *** when people say, your car sounds mean as hell, what do you have in there, whats it run? i'm like......****......i'm just as bad as a ****ing ***** with a slow car and a loud exhaust.........the 350 i have in my garage will remedy this problem

i feel like a friggin hypocrit.............driving a loud 17 second camaro and saying i hate rice..........well i took a look in the mirror, and i was no better than the rice

:shrugs: