300HP+

[Guest]

3.1 with ported 3400 top end making 300 HP NA? I don't think so. And why exactly is the 3400 bad for performance applications? The extra displacement must not be good. It is not much different from a 3100, which is what you would have when you put the 3400 top end onto the 3.1 block. Except you wouldn't have a roller cam.

Marty

Marty, I'm just as confused as you are.

Ok, let slook at this a little differently.........

See, my sig? That's 13.8 @ 99 MPH in a 3200 lb (or so, still need to actual weigh it) S-15, this equates to between 195 to 230 HP AT the rear wheels, depending on calculating the E.T. or the MPH, this then calculates to around 245 to 280 HP at the crank, I am having fuel delivery issues in 4th gear, which will change those numbers for the better, once I get the bugs worked out. Seeing where I am now, and what I believe can be done, I am now shooting for 300 crank HP, that should put me at a low 13 to high 12, if I can get traction, I am already having traction issues. I am using mostly stock parts internally, except for the cam, which is the GM Performance of the Crane 260-2, I am using genII stock replecement pistons for the 3.1, giving me a static SCR of 8.9:1, I am con sidering a thinner head gasket to give me approximatly a 9.3:1 SCR, also tightening up the quench, by about .020", I still need to do all the math, but should work well. I am running only 7 PSI boost at this point, at peak in 3rd and 4th gears, and am planning on 10 to 12 PSI, which should bring me to 300 HP or just over, the more the mo'better, right?

Tiago was able to acheive over 300 HP and just under 400 ft/lbs torque, at the rear wheels in his stock bottom end 3.4 installed in his Camaro, he has some top end work done though.

I'm not sure what Curtis is running at now, but a quick slide rule calculation shows me right about 250 HP at the wheels going by E.T. and about 290 HP at the wheels going by his MPH (IIRC it was 112 MPH), which in either case will be near or over 300 HP at the crank.

614streets was able to get 290 HP, with his last build, that used a Fagoel supercharger on his AFAIK pretty much stock 2.8L (I think he had cam, porting and roller rockers) in his S-10, he is shooting for much more, with his current build, that looks bad ass.

All I'm saying is that 300 HP forced is not really an issue, it can be done, the parts that are used and moreso the tune will determine how long it lasts. I drive mine daily, I know Curtis doesn't, I don't know about Tiago, I believe 614streets truck is supposed to be a daily driver, or pretty much so, when it's together.

It can be done, has been done, and will be done again, by me, others and maybe you.

[TheProfessor]

if you guys are serious about talking on this subject get ahold of me and ill explain everything about the parts used, parts available, and power curves/design specs of these motors and what is good and what is bad and why
my aol or aim screen name is architeuthis007
i look forward to talking to some of you

[TheProfessor]

3.1 with ported 3400 top end making 300 HP NA? I don't think so. And why exactly is the 3400 bad for performance applications? The extra displacement must not be good. It is not much different from a 3100, which is what you would have when you put the 3400 top end onto the 3.1 block. Except you wouldn't have a roller cam.

Marty

and i did say build the 3.1 first of all which is an option you dont have with a 3400 a 3400s power curve is gotten with .050 timing which renders it flatter than a normal engine and its got a smaller stoke than a 3.1 which is also bad for this type of motor
for alot of hp you either need alot of torque or alot of rpms
you want to get as much torque as soon as you can which is where the stroke comes and the headers play alo into it

[v6h.o.]

and i did say build the 3.1 first of all which is an option you dont have with a 3400 a 3400s power curve is gotten with .050 timing which renders it flatter than a normal engine and its got a smaller stoke than a 3.1 which is also bad for this type of motor
for alot of hp you either need alot of torque or alot of rpms
you want to get as much torque as soon as you can which is where the stroke comes and the headers play alo into it

???

im even more confused...
but one fact that is wrong in there for sure is that the 3400 has the SAME stroke as the 3.1L, the Bore is larger.

[TheProfessor]

no the bore was increased and the stroke decreased when the 3.1 went to the 3100
then the bore was increased whice is where the 3400 comes from
the 3.1 is a completely different intenal design than the 3400
its a different kind of motor

[RacerX11]

No, you don't know what you are talking about. You must be thinking of the 90 degree V6 family, with the 3300 and 3800.

Here are some bore/stroke numbers for you:

Engine Bore Stroke
2.8 89mm 76mm
3.1 89mm 84mm
3100 89mm 84mm
3.4 92mm 84mm
3400 92mm 84mm

The 3100 and 3.1 are almost the same engine. Same crank, same rods, slightly different pistons. The 3100 block has better oiling, and the top end flows better.

Where did you get your information from?

Marty

[Anonymous]

Man, these smileys r0x0r!

[TheProfessor]

i have gm service manuals where are your specs comming from

[v6h.o.]

i am a GM tech those are the correct Specs Marty is posting..

and those are the exact same specs all of us here on the board would all agree with.

tis true.

[TheProfessor]

bias toward the site

[Guest]

:wtf1:

I guess my 981 casting crank from my 3400 is different than my 981 casting crank from my 3.1.

And what's this about ".050" timing? Timing is usually measured in dergrees, not linear measurements.

[SappySE107]

Just admit you are wrong rave, I am sure all of us with our reliable sources and measurements aren't just biased towards the site.

[DarkKnight]

I seem to remember a while back on the jbody yahoo group, curtis was saying that he could kick the boost up to generate like 500+ hp on the 3.1T. The only reason why he didn't was because the clutch wouldn't take it. But, I could be confused, it was like 4+ years ago. Some punk was disrespecting cavaliers. Also forced induction increases HP as a function of percentage, the more you have before TB or S/C the more the turbo multiplies HP. So if you take a stock 3400 @ 175HP/210TQ * 68% (<-a decent turbo w/intercooler) = 294HP/353TQ. From what I understand, it's not too difficult to get one of these engines at 210HP N/A. So 350 isn't out of the question. Still, in a car that light, it will be pointless. You can fit tires only so big on the front. IMHO I think a stock GM FWD car with a 350hp engine would be a joke. (except maybe a GP or MC thier heavy enough) You'd kill yourself, unless you upgrade everything else along the way.

[v6h.o.]

bias toward the site

? hmm. i think that those of on this site are that hardcore into our 660 engines that we always want the proper engine specs. i dont think we would agree to wrong engine specs just to try and stick up for this website. what a lame excuse.

do i have to go photocopy and dig up all my Factory GM service manuals to show you that no those are the correct bore/stroke figures.

since i guess those of us here are biased to the website i'll find you links from other websites that i guess in your opinion must be biased to us as well because these specs agree with us and now what you are saying...

3400

http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/gmpow/la1_truck.htm

3100

http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/gmpow/lg8.htm

3.1L

http://www.v6z24.com/specs/31specs

2.8L

http://www.v6z24.com/specs/28specs

[ikessky]

Still, in a car that light, it will be pointless. You can fit tires only so big on the front. IMHO I think a stock GM FWD car with a 350hp engine would be a joke. (except maybe a GP or MC thier heavy enough) You'd kill yourself, unless you upgrade everything else along the way.

I hope you're talking about the Cav still, because my Century isn't light! I think for right now, I will build it up in N/A trim until I can get the cash to run a S/C.