V6 Tech 1967-2002 V6 Engine Related

Can a 3.4L firebird be put into the 14's N/A with bolt ons?

Old Jan 11, 2003 | 12:01 PM
  #16  
Ryan94V6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 159
From: Sunrise, Florida
Well actually I do have an 160 degree theromstat and its sitting in my room waiting to get installed and I do have a jet stage 2 chip coming to my house in a few days. I do plan on doing every bolt on mod possible for my 3.4L engine . I will do the TB spacer mod and alot more to come. Hey Eric what do you plan on doing to your mighty 3.4L next ???
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 12:50 PM
  #17  
spootydinkcamaro94's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 115
Well, if you want to get really technical yes it can be done. Think about what NA means for a second. Naturally aspirated. Aspirate = to breath. So, using some logic here, naturally aspirated means that the engine breathes by itself (without a SC forcing air in, or a turbo forcing air in). Does nitrous force air in and make the engine breath in more air? No, so technically if you run nitrous you are still NA in my opinion.
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 03:53 PM
  #18  
94GrayV6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 905
From: Orlando, FL
Nitrous cars are NOT NA. You're injecting a gas into the engine which wouldn't naturally be there, so therefore your'e not naturally aspirated.
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 03:57 PM
  #19  
atl2001's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
From: carbondale IL \ Alton IL (outside St Louie MO)
N/A does not include the use of N2O, well unless you are considering N/A as nitrous assisted LOL
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 04:35 PM
  #20  
spootydinkcamaro94's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 115
i understand what you guys are saying exactly, but for example - if you put a new camshaft in a car - its not naturally there either so does that mean that its no longer NA? No, its just there to help performance. Nitrous isnt forcing air in, or changing the engines aspiration
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 08:47 PM
  #21  
bluecmaro96's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 608
From: windber pa
you are foolimg yourself if you think you will get anywhere near 300+ hp with a n/a 3.4 good luck
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 08:50 PM
  #22  
94GrayV6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 905
From: Orlando, FL
I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand spooty. You change parts in the engine it still breathes the same non-forced, unaltered air as it did when it was stock. The engine is still only using air and gasoline for the combustion process, whereas with nitrous it uses N20, normal air and gasoline.
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 08:56 PM
  #23  
nikkev's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 747
From: Charleston,SC
Cool

Originally posted by bluecmaro96
you are foolimg yourself if you think you will get anywhere near 300+ hp with a n/a 3.4 good luck
Not true.A 3.4 that has been internally built will see 300hp no problem.Tim LeGros put down 191hp at the wheels with just bolt-ons,no internal work at all.Besides,you don't need 300hp to see a 14.9.You can probably see that with around 220-240 rwhp or less.
Kevin

Last edited by nikkev; Jan 11, 2003 at 09:02 PM.
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 09:09 PM
  #24  
94GrayV6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 905
From: Orlando, FL
While we're on the subject of Tim's car, I have a question that maybe someone who's been around for a while can answer for me. How did he only run a 15.65 on drag tires with a 91.35 trap speed? Looking at the 3.8L ET's with similar trap speeds, So Slow should have run around a 14.9 or so. Was something goin on with his car at the time which can explain this?
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 09:43 PM
  #25  
nikkev's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 747
From: Charleston,SC
Originally posted by 94GrayV6
While we're on the subject of Tim's car, I have a question that maybe someone who's been around for a while can answer for me. How did he only run a 15.65 on drag tires with a 91.35 trap speed? Looking at the 3.8L ET's with similar trap speeds, So Slow should have run around a 14.9 or so. Was something goin on with his car at the time which can explain this?
I wondered this same thing.The only thing I can think of is maybe weight.Tim's car was fully loaded in addition to GFX and stuff like that.That's the only reason I can see that a car with over 190rwhp could only run a 15.6.He also never installed a stall (no pun intended) and I think that could have been hurting him as well.
Kevin
Old Jan 11, 2003 | 09:46 PM
  #26  
MustangEater82's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,738
From: Charleston, SC
I heard he had some horrible problems with traction.

James montigny had similar problems if they yanked same 60', they woudl be faster then me.

If James had hit similar 60 foot to me, he woudl have hit a 15.2-15.3, and that is being conservative, I think a 15.1 was very attainable.

And Tim's car was trapping 3 mph faster then James... I honestly think he might have been able to get his car in the 14s.

They were both making much mroe power then me.... I think if I am going to be getting any better times I am going to have to do some things that make power, my 15.4 run felt nearly perfect.
Old Jan 12, 2003 | 02:01 PM
  #27  
2turboz28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 145
From: brockton,ma
i should have told everyone that i am building a complete motor, not just throwing bolt-on goodies at it. this car will be borderline streetable so i think that 300hp is a good number to shoot for, but it is not out of the question. my shop and i are putting alot of time and money into this project because we want to test the limits of the 3.4l. we have alredy built a 2.8 with 600hp at the crank. if he still has the dynosheet than i will post it. that was not n/a or streetable. carb,custom designed blower, and a little nitrous for good measure is what we used. keep in mind that i build race/marine engines for a living. i will post the dynosheet for the 3.4l when i get it dynoed.
Old Jan 13, 2003 | 09:18 AM
  #28  
CANTONRACER's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,764
From: North Canton, OH
Well good luck. But you can only get so far with a big cam, big compression and a ton of port with a platform that starts out with what, 150 hp at most.
Old Jan 13, 2003 | 10:04 AM
  #29  
MustangEater82's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,738
From: Charleston, SC
It is very possible to get over 300 hp form a 3.4L jsut hae to build up everything, its not cheap and easy but can be done.

60* GM v6 has been used in several racing serious due to it being light weight.
Old Jan 13, 2003 | 12:29 PM
  #30  
94Camaro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 190
From: Chatsworth, CA
k i had to put my .02 in...

#1) A company called whitehorse racing builds 3.4L OHV engines for fieros. they get 300 hp n/a out of the engines..how? no idea..just know they do it cause they offer it.

#2) tim legros's hp (191) was an ESTIMATE...based on his nitrous dyno. he never did a n/a dyno, or so James Montigny told me.

#3) keep watching. I have solved the problem of the 3.4L intake being restrictive. I have a stock cam, headers, posi, 3" catback, and aluminum heads and intake, and not that much a change in compression, and i can tell you teh car is a different being altogether. i wanna get some track runs in very very soon. just -- for the first tiem ever in CA history (that i know of) carlsbad raceway decided to close for winter for some reason, so im screwed till feb.

-R

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.