'93 Camaro V6 info

[bob's34]

I am looking at getting a 93 Camaro 3.4l engine and not having seen it yet, I am wondering about a few things. Does the 93 have iron or aluminum heads and of what generation? Does it have the larger intake valve? And I have heard they have a roller cam, is that correct?
Hopefully none of this stuff changed mid-year.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

All RWD 60degree v6 engines use iron heads. Being on a 93, it should have the 1.42"/1.72" heads... I think all the RWD 60v6s since the mid-late eighties have had these heads.

And no, the roller cam was FWD only.

[bszopi]

3.4SFI (94-up?) Camaro engines were roller I thought...

[evilmiata]

3.4SFI (94-up?) Camaro engines were roller I thought...

nope. I've got a set of Crane roller rockers waiting to be installed.

[bob's34]

Good and bad I guess. From reading around here the aluminum heads were designed to flow better but at least it has the bigger valve. And swapping for aluminum heads is I guess not recommended.

Thanks for the info

[evilmiata]

Good and bad I guess. From reading around here the aluminum heads were designed to flow better but at least it has the bigger valve. And swapping for aluminum heads is I guess not recommended.

Thanks for the info

If I remember correctly, swapping the heads out without the pistons will give you 11.2:1 compression. *KABOOM*

[Anonymous]

Why would a CR of 11.2:1 result in the engine going kaboom? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

[StudlyCamaro]

too much compression = boom unless you are on race gas

we have hydraulic flat tappet lifters

swapping to the alumnium heads is gonna be a bitch, only one guy has done it thus far (im in the process of building my motor with alumnium heads right now)

if ya do it there are a lot of parts that need to be moddified, and the pistons need to be replaced so you dont have to run on race gas

[Anonymous]

Sure, you could keep it down to 9.6:1 or whatever the stock 3400 CR is by using 3400 pistons, but over 12:1 on pump gas has been done.

[GPXSS]

Please children, lets not keep applying the "compression greater than 10:1 = race gas" to the 60º V6 with aluminum heads.. it simply is not true.

I plus 2 other people i know personally run in the 12:1 range using 93 pump, and have not gone "kaboom" as you say.

[StudlyCamaro]

are you serious? wow, i wouldnt have ever guessed that you would be able to keep it from knocking,

i stand corrected, however i will still be getting new pistons , but i know 12:1 compression and 15 lbs of boost will be a disaster waiting to happen

[v6h.o.]

i run a compression ratio over 11:1 on 91 pump. no knocking, no ks activity.

[GPXSS]

are you serious? wow, i wouldnt have ever guessed that you would be able to keep it from knocking,

i stand corrected, however i will still be getting new pistons , but i know 12:1 compression and 15 lbs of boost will be a disaster waiting to happen

Most of it depends on chamber and piston design. I believe with the right piston design, you could run 12 - 14:1 with boost and have zero KR.

In your case using off the shelf pistons, then yeah.. thats too much.

[evilmiata]

Please children, lets not keep applying the "compression greater than 10:1 = race gas" to the 60º V6 with aluminum heads.. it simply is not true.

I plus 2 other people i know personally run in the 12:1 range using 93 pump, and have not gone "kaboom" as you say.

I didn't mean to imply that one cannot run 10:1+ compression. However, assuming that a stock 3.4l is 9:1 (thats what my crate is), a jump to 11:1 could have some serious side affects. Consider that many GM engineers worked long and hard to design the engine the way it is. Improving upon the work of a world class design team (as if ANYONE can just build an engine from a hunk of iron) takes a lot of research and thought. Therefore, my thought is that running 11:1 compression in an engine designed to be 9:1 as a good chance of *KABOOM*

[bszopi]

One of the ways to allow an engine to run higher compression is proper tuning. Even that 3.4L crate could run 11:1 if the fuel and spark was setup correctly. When GM builds an engine, they build it to sit right in the middle of performance and economy so that they can put it in various platforms and everyone will be happy. Why do you think performance chips were such a big deal? And again, they were just tuning slightly better, but far from ideal. Get the right tuning in there, and you can have an engine right higher compression and still be happy doing it...