i can't, I won't, and I don't stop

[Canyonero]

How many of these young kids are going to understand your #'s and specs?

I've learned to trust people whom have built my confidence that what they're saying is true.

If a young guy came here and read some of your posts, they would think its impossible to build one of these engines due to the over complications you guys post.

Hardly, I think they would learn the limitations that need to be addressed in order to make real-world performance. I HAVE put an iron head in my car, and now I KNOW that to get substantially more power I need aluminum. I wish I would have come and asked first.

And heaven forbid they have worked on engines and try to tell about it...
if they didn't have "EXACT" specs they would last 2 seconds here.

Post proof that your mods produce real performance. Go finish it.

I am a tech and a mechanic and DO have 20 years of experience

That's fine. But you can't say that these guys don't have similar or greater experience. You get defensive about your mods, and that's why every thread you start has deteriorated. I understand you've put a lot of thought into these mods and spent a lot of time on them, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't going to get what you think out of them.

[powerdoctor]

It was just a simplified example of 175 cc heads being able to make power.

That was the original arguement.

I simply gave refrences of engines with roughly 175cc intake runners, with about the same bore and stroke, that make lots of power.

Since they were v8's I cut the power x 8 and then multiplied it x 6.

It was an example.... hello ?????

This is what I am talking about with you guys on this site.

I am not going to post a whole mathematical equasion with flow of the heads, radians per second and force ect...

It was just an example of 175cc head engines that make power.

If I over simplify things, then you guys make it way to over complicated.

How many of these young kids are going to understand your #'s and specs?

If a young guy came here and read some of your posts, they would think its impossible to build one of these engines due to the over complications you guys post.

And heaven forbid they have worked on engines and try to tell about it...
if they didn't have "EXACT" specs they would last 2 seconds here.

I am a tech and a mechanic and DO have 20 years of experience, and I am about fed up with this site for that reason alone.

Everytime I have been challenged I have come back strong with an answer for you guys, but how many young guys starting off will be able to do that, plus I am confident enough to sit and put up with it and post my replies.

Its just rediculous is what I am saying, I post a GENERAL and simplified response and look what I get....

Then I ask a real question and no one wants to reply... instead you guys post more crap and try to pic apart my post and hide behind you eqasions.

Nice guys... nice.

[sprucegagt]

Heres an example of what I am talking about.

I will use a 305 as a start.

The 305 has a 3.736" bore with a 3.480" stroke.
The 3.4 rwd has a 3.622" bore with a 3.307" stroke.

In 1988 the rated out put of the 305 with mpfi, like a fiero, fire bird ect... was 240 H.P. at 4000 rpm.

http://chevy.jpbconcepts.com/1c7o7.html

This engine ran about a 180 cc intake on the heads and had the same rod as the 3.4, about the same bore, and stroke, and valves with a .465" inch lift cam, and 9.0/ 1 compression give or take.

If you divide the 240 by 8 you get 30 H.P. per cyl.
30 H.P. x 6 = 180 H.P.

So a stock mpfi 3.4 with iron heads should make this power with its iron heads, like the 305.

A stock 302 H.O. 1990 with 175 cc heads, mpfi rated at 225 H.P. with only a supercharger can make almost 400 H.P.

400 H.P. divided by 8 cyl. = 50 H.P. x 6 cyl for a v6 rating = 300 H.P.
The 302 H.O. has similar bore stroke and head cc, as a 3.4 rwd.
It makes that kind of power with a .444 lift cam.

Now take that 300 H.P. and through my 200 H.P. N.O.S. shot on it and you have 500 H.P.

You sure you have 20+ years of hands on experience or is it really 2 years of reading rice rags. Nobody ever calculates HP output using this method, nevermind that the HP output on a supercharged engine never equals a turbo engine, even if they are at the same boost level. I won't even bother with the whole N.O.S. reference or 200 HP claim.

[Superdave]

his main page is www.turboz24.com

I think he got tired of breaking FWD trannies and axles, last i heard the engine was going into a MGB.

[powerdoctor]

Thank you dave.

Does he have a page with pics?
Or on another site?

Yes the book farts dust, but the principals are the same.
The internal combustion engine has not changed that much in over the last 50 years.
That is the book I was reading when it came out for tips on these engines, and that was 13 years ago.
I graduated in 93' and was already wiring competition systems and very light modification of engines, adding cams and what not.

I do want you and the guys to realize i am not machining these engines personally.
I drop my block off, say " I want this block bored to a safe point (usually the biggest bore I can ) and give then the piston specs, or a piston, which I pick by application, and have them bore it with it's clearances, which vary depending on app.
I then take take the setup, ( after filing the rings and grinding down the crank ) to the balancer.
He wieghs and balances my assemblies.
I get the stuff back, assemble it, check tolerances and put it together.

Can I do the machine work.. some.
I have run lathes, bridge ports, punches, brakes, line bores ect...
I have even done some small cnc progrmimng before, just making sure tolerances were kept, addjusting for bit wear and changing bit ect...

Do I machine anymore? ... no.
Do I claim to be a machinist?
No.

But I have assembled alot of engines, blew alot up, and have seen first hand on the street and track what lives and dies.

Could I cryogenicaly freeze my block, put in extended sleaves that sit above the deck and chamfer the heads so they slide together with a carbon fiber head gasket.... ect.... probably, but whats the point?

How much power do you really need?

I am content with a little v6, not because I have too, I could put a v 12 in it if I wanted, but it makes enough power to make the car fun, not mess with my handling like a 350 swap, and I have something unique...

[Canyonero]

I really wish I knew the difference before I dropped the iron head in my rig. But I will not make that mistake next time! I have the Curato book too. It's an excellent resource, but there is a reason it's out of print.

[Superdave]

JBP was selling double roller chains for the 3400 for the last 4-6 years, supposedly doing the same thing that you had posted in your other topic. Not sure how many they sold though..

check out Curtis's page.. he built a 3.1 for his cavalier that was making around 500 WHP on iron heads.. over .600 lift on a custom solid roller cam, 20 PSI. http://www.turboz24.com/Specs.htm

BTW, don't believe everything you read about the TGP, many people have taken those engines apart to find that they are really nothing special. a while back someone contacted Mclaren and asked for specifics.. even they said it was just a stock 3.1 MPFI that they slapped a different UIM on and added a turbo. they were tuned rich enough to be reliable and still make decent HP.

[powerdoctor]

So what does the "best stock parts" mean though?
I'm not being an ass or trying to argue, I am asking a real question here.

Are you talking about flow?
Does N/A flow = best stock parts?
Do you feel aluminum makes heads better?

If I have the nitrated, stress relieved, deep fillet "turbo" crank...
Modded 5.7 h-beam rods.
Forged pistons/ floated pins.
A 25 over oil pump with cooler and a 1qt filter.
And the aluminum "stud girdle pan" what else can I do to the lower end?

The cam is a roller, and I am attempting to put a roller chain to it, something I have not seen done, which is another mod and will make power.

The heads are ported, dual springs, hardened retainers, ect...
I have compcams hardened pushrods on roller lifters with hardened guides.

I could benefit from head studs yes, but are the stock hardend ones that bad?
Has anyone broke them on iron heads before?

I could run a copper head gasket, but then worry about longevity due to corrosion.

So other than intake and heads, why does my engine suck so bad to you guys ?

I would rather put 2 turbos and N.O.S. on iron heads instead of aluminum any day.
Do you feel I'm wrong for this too?

seriously asking here...

[IsaacHayes]

It's a 3400, not 3500 block.... And remember 67 motors were rated without the accessories on the motor. There is a lot more to it than how you are generalizing things. The 3.4L is rated at 160hp from the factory. Not 180. The 3400's are 180 from the factory.

Once you get that thing fired up, and on a dyno with proof we will see what it makes. But we are telling you that the choice of parts are not that good, and some of us have gone down that path before and finally realized that it's better to start out with the best parts stock, and then mod that. I understand you may be trying to be inventive, but some times you can't really re-invent the wheel and have it work better than the tried and true round shape :P

[powerdoctor]

Alright...

I'm going to write this so to try to stop the madness.

Heres an example of what I am talking about.

I will use a 305 as a start.

The 305 has a 3.736" bore with a 3.480" stroke.
The 3.4 rwd has a 3.622" bore with a 3.307" stroke.

In 1988 the rated out put of the 305 with mpfi, like a fiero, fire bird ect... was 240 H.P. at 4000 rpm.

http://chevy.jpbconcepts.com/1c7o7.html

This engine ran about a 180 cc intake on the heads and had the same rod as the 3.4, about the same bore, and stroke, and valves with a .465" inch lift cam, and 9.0/ 1 compression give or take.

If you divide the 240 by 8 you get 30 H.P. per cyl.
30 H.P. x 6 = 180 H.P.

So a stock mpfi 3.4 with iron heads should make this power with its iron heads, like the 305.

If you increase the compression , port the heads, add a bigger cam, add headers, exhaust, and a "tune" how can you not make over 250 H.P.

Another chevy the 327 in 1967, an engine with less stroke, but everthing else about the same, made 350 H.P. with 11.0/ 1 compression.

http://chevy.jpbconcepts.com/1c7o3.html

Even a 289 hipo, with similar specs, can achieve almost 300 H.P. on 175 cc heads.

http://www.fordclassics.com/enginespecs.html

So again I don't understand why you don't feel these heads aren't worth a crap.

A stock 302 H.O. 1990 with 175 cc heads, mpfi rated at 225 H.P. with only a supercharger can make almost 400 H.P.

400 H.P. divided by 8 cyl. = 50 H.P. x 6 cyl for a v6 rating = 300 H.P.
The 302 H.O. has similar bore stroke and head cc, as a 3.4 rwd.
It makes that kind of power with a .444 lift cam.

Now take that 300 H.P. and through my 200 H.P. N.O.S. shot on it and you have 500 H.P.

I have no doubts my mill or any other iron head 3.4 could produce these #'s

As for me being a thief and "robbing" the junk yard ... lmao... its a figure of speach.
The turbo crank I have was listed at $800.00 dollars.
I buy cores with the crank in it for $50.00
Thats a "steal" and I am robbing them on price ya tart.

I do apologize for my "steel" turbo crank, which I thought it was, and so did the dealership.
I listed the part # as 10110549 for the "steel" crank.
The regular crank for the year is part # 10146900
The cranks ARE different as I stated and was argued with about.
This article ( below link ) ben was so helpfull with, explains the crank.
While I was WRONG and it was not steel, and it started as a cast crank, it is heavily modified and fooled me and the dealer.
And has no problem running the stock crank sensor.

http://www.turbograndprix.com/Extensive%20Details%20and%20Differences.htm

See I did learn something .... I was right the turbo crank is different, thanx ben.

monkey full now.

Oh, sorry once again for the "z" typo, it was from a "v" vin car.
1990 model year.
Is there even a "z" vin car ???? I dunno, oh well... who cares?

And about the 3900 remark in my first post...

A 3.4, which i had my motor listed as @ cardomain, was a conservative "shot in the dark"
I knew it was not a 3.1, and 3.4 rwd don't have pistons that stick out of the bore, but the bores were close to a 3.4 rwd, just a hair bigger, so I figured it was a 3.4 at the least.
Then I found this site... The 3.5 and 3.9 has pistons that hung over the deck, so I assumed it was one of these 2 engines.
With out reaserching #'s I just concluded, that if I had a 3.5 with a 30 over bore it was close to a 3.9, so f$ck it I'll post it as that, a 3900.

Learning something again, I now know that its not a 3900 block.

You all say that it is a 3400, well rwd 3.4 pistons are to small, and I am not talking about .003 of an inch either here, they are small by alot.

So maybe it was a bored out 3.4 when I got it, that just got another bore like someone stated before.

Is .060 too much for a 3400? I dunno?

So if it was a 3.4 fwd, and now it has a .060 bore that makes the total bore diameter 93.5 mm.

So its a small 3.5 on the scale then, not a 3.9.

So I have a 3.5 in my fiero with ported heads and 2 turbos/ intercoolers and N.O.S. on a 4 speed.
I'll change my cardomain page to 3500.

Are you guys satisfied yet?

I can admit I'm wrong, unlike other people here.

If some of you guys still don't think I know what I'm doing , sorry, don't pay attention to me then.

For the other that have watched me defend myself on this site and belive in me, thank you.

I will try to cover EVERY single angle of my posts from now on, with full explanations and links and what not.

If I knew you guys were going to shark me so hard I would have stated all of this in the first post, I didn't know I had to.

Learning yet again ... ; )

[Superdave]

How can you say that? How much flow have you been able to get from them? 150, 180 CFM max? The 3400 small port heads flow that out of the box.

Some comparisons between iron, 3400 and 3500 heads...

http://s158.photobucket.com/albums/t...ics/?start=all

lol.. and 3500 heads flow 230 intake stock.


that book is WAY out of date.. GM stopped making iron head '660's for a reason.

[ForcedFirebird]

Hypers are good for N/A apps, not rcomended for boost. A cast piston will hold better than hyper in the case of detonantion. I have seen over 30psi on stock cast pistons in a turbo Dodge 2.2 that ran 10's in a Reliant K-car. He might still have a site, google it. (thedodgegarge maybe?)

[Canyonero]

Finish it up and get it on the dyno.

[SappySE107]

That book is outdated for sure and the iron heads do suck compared to the gen 3 heads. 3500 heads would have been the best. There is nothing HO about those iron heads other than they are better than the 1.6/1.3 valve iron heads. But you build lots of engines so you knew all that.

Liar because you called a 3400 a 3900 and KNEW it. No excuses. Thief cause you steal from junkyards. I didn't say anything negative or mean. I asked what it had to do with my company. Said it was an interesting project. Then I asked why iron heads. Then I asked how the combustion chamber lined up cause you said 3900. Then I said you should probably use head studs for your applications instead of head bolts. Then I told you the CPS didn't work and explained the 24x sensor. Then I closed the thread because it was getting out of hand. Get your facts straight before you claim that I was being mean or hounding you.

/moved to off topic.

[zofo61]

"hyperpooppectic pistons".....your kidding right?

“Hypereutectic” means over eutectic. The word eutectic refers to a condition in chemistry when two elements can be alloyed together on a molecular level, but only up to a specific percentage, at which point any additional secondary element will retain a distinct separate form.

I guess the main element in your build was "poop"....which means they were full of "poop"

Hence the commonality of your skills and your information.


I tried , now I quit

No Banana for your Monkey

Zofo .......out