Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

newbie ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 85_305
    replied
    Originally posted by sharkey View Post
    a 3.4l tdc (twin dual cam) is rated at 205-210 depending on year and tranny. there never was a factory 3400 that came with 215hp, they were between 180-185 depending on the vehicle they came in (only difference is pcm programing).

    the camaro is 160hp. yes, a mini van had more power than a v6 camaro in the same year. reason being the v6 camaro was old technology, not a whole lot changed between the first efi 2.8 and the 3.4l (aside from bore/stroke). it made 160hp, enough to move it around for people that didnt want a v8. a 3400 needed the power, it was the biggest motor put into things like mini vans, grand ams, ect.
    Well I wouldn't use the whole "old technology" argument (read: Look at 500hp Corvettes, stock of course, using this "old technology"), but I still think it's silly they were rated less than a damn PONTIAC GRAND PRIX! lol. But i do kinda see your point, needing a high-power fwd 3400 for mini-vans and what not.
    It's just amazing it's teh same motor, yet its.. not?

    Leave a comment:


  • sharkey
    replied
    a 3.4l tdc (twin dual cam) is rated at 205-210 depending on year and tranny. there never was a factory 3400 that came with 215hp, they were between 180-185 depending on the vehicle they came in (only difference is pcm programing).

    the camaro is 160hp. yes, a mini van had more power than a v6 camaro in the same year. reason being the v6 camaro was old technology, not a whole lot changed between the first efi 2.8 and the 3.4l (aside from bore/stroke). it made 160hp, enough to move it around for people that didnt want a v8. a 3400 needed the power, it was the biggest motor put into things like mini vans, grand ams, ect.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85_305
    replied
    Originally posted by The_Raven View Post
    The SFI genI 3.4 is rated at 160 HP. Even the genIII 3400 is not rated at 220 HP, most I've seen is 200 HP, though in stock form I have seen dynos tests show 200ish HP at the wheels in J-Bodies (obviously a custom swap) using the 5-speed tranaxle.
    Whaaaat??? I just looked into this.. how are our fwd 3400's more powerfull than a damn pushrod v6 Camaro's motor???? What gives??
    And btw.. the 3400's are rated from 215-220hp, depending if they have a 5spd or auto

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by 85_305 View Post
    The 3.4 has 220hp.. a 2.8 has at most 140hp.. that's just about doubled the HP man I'd think you'd be straight w/ the 3.4, but it's all in your personal wants I guess
    The SFI genI 3.4 is rated at 160 HP. Even the genIII 3400 is not rated at 220 HP, most I've seen is 200 HP, though in stock form I have seen dynos tests show 200ish HP at the wheels in J-Bodies (obviously a custom swap) using the 5-speed tranaxle.

    Leave a comment:


  • forcecop
    replied
    Hmmm... I thought it was 160-180 hp, are we talking about the carb. one?

    Geez, if we are, then I will be golden for my plans, who needs a V8?

    Leave a comment:


  • 85_305
    replied
    Originally posted by forcecop View Post
    Not so silly. My use for the new engine is to power a 4x4 vehicle, with larger than stock tires, and various items that are going to add wieght to the vehicle. I KNOW that the 2.8 isn't really suited for the plans I have. A 3.4 isn't that huge of a leap in horsepower, so I thought it was a valid question.

    I'm not really interested in swapping a V8 (don't want to put THAT much money into the Jeep), so I just wanted an opinion about the 3.4. (hense my second line after the comment you posted.) :P

    I'll take your second sentence as validation for sticking with the 3.4.

    Thanks.
    The 3.4 has 220hp.. a 2.8 has at most 140hp.. that's just about doubled the HP man I'd think you'd be straight w/ the 3.4, but it's all in your personal wants I guess

    Leave a comment:


  • forcecop
    replied
    Originally posted by 85_305 View Post
    That's a silly question. The 3.4 will be WORLDS improvement in every way over that 2.8

    Not so silly. My use for the new engine is to power a 4x4 vehicle, with larger than stock tires, and various items that are going to add wieght to the vehicle. I KNOW that the 2.8 isn't really suited for the plans I have. A 3.4 isn't that huge of a leap in horsepower, so I thought it was a valid question.

    I'm not really interested in swapping a V8 (don't want to put THAT much money into the Jeep), so I just wanted an opinion about the 3.4. (hense my second line after the comment you posted.) :P

    I'll take your second sentence as validation for sticking with the 3.4.

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85_305
    replied
    Originally posted by forcecop View Post
    Cool. Is the improvement of the 3.4 much more noticable than the 2.8?
    That's a silly question. The 3.4 will be WORLDS improvement in every way over that 2.8

    Leave a comment:


  • forcecop
    replied
    Cool. Is the improvement of the 3.4 much more noticable than the 2.8?

    I'm going to be building my Jeep off for offroading, need the power for bigger tires and such.

    Leave a comment:


  • geoffinbc
    replied
    Originally posted by forcecop View Post
    I've been looking at replacing my 2.8 with a crate 3.4 in my 86 Jeep Cherokee. The only thing that concerns me is that some sites say that the engine is only used for carb, and automatic tranny applications...

    I am using a carb now, but I have a manual tranny. Is this still a direct swap?
    It is a direct swap. Either way. The warning you are reading is an emissions warning. The engine is only emission improved for Carbureted automatic trucks.

    I have a Fuel injected manual transmission and I pass emissions just as easily as the 2.8L did.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85_305
    replied
    Originally posted by Ortie666 View Post
    I know a guy who put a 305 into his s-10 and got the same milage as his 2.8L just because the engine doesnt have to work that hard to move it the same speed..
    Should have been even better. I got 30mpg w/ my 305 in my stock 3300lb '85 Z28

    Leave a comment:


  • forcecop
    replied
    I've been looking at replacing my 2.8 with a crate 3.4 in my 86 Jeep Cherokee. The only thing that concerns me is that some sites say that the engine is only used for carb, and automatic tranny applications...

    I am using a carb now, but I have a manual tranny. Is this still a direct swap?

    Leave a comment:


  • geoffinbc
    replied
    Originally posted by Ortie666 View Post
    V8 or 4.3... I know a guy who put a 305 into his s-10 and got the same milage as his 2.8L just because the engine doesnt have to work that hard to move it the same speed..
    Yea but neither of those are a straight swap. Only a 3.1L or 3.4L is a straight swap. 4.3L is a junk swap. My 3.4L beats any new stock 4.3L vortec S-10 on the track. Thats saying alot for 93 TBI technology versus 2002 SFI and an engine that is larger with better flowing heads.

    A V8 swap is nice but way more expensive and requires a different transmission along with more parts than it would take to do a 4.3L swap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    3.4 from and F-body or crate engine is an easy drop in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ortie666
    replied
    V8 or 4.3... I know a guy who put a 305 into his s-10 and got the same milage as his 2.8L just because the engine doesnt have to work that hard to move it the same speed..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X