Can a 3.4L firebird be put into the 14's N/A with bolt ons?
01-13-2003, 01:54 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 190
current parts list:
that should work for now. im trying to get a more concise page together detailing the full rebuild and everything. i have pics scattered around taken with digital cameras. i wanna document what i did too, as well as post the final images and some track/dyno times.
-R
- Gen III Aluminum heads :: canted valve - 1.72 in / 1.42 ex - "D" shaped exhaust port
- Lower intake manifold from a 1996 3100 engine (soon to upgrade to 3400 intake)
- upper intake manifold from a 1996 3100 engine (soon to upgrade to a 3400 intake)
- stock 52mm TB from a 1996 3100 engine, soon to be LT1 TB
- RKSport Headers (just try to get pacesetters, they are on a 6 month backorder)
- 19 Lb./hr fuel injectors in true fuel rails (as opposed to the 3.4 block)
that should work for now. im trying to get a more concise page together detailing the full rebuild and everything. i have pics scattered around taken with digital cameras. i wanna document what i did too, as well as post the final images and some track/dyno times.
-R
01-13-2003, 02:00 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: brockton,ma
Posts: 145
dont forget that this guy wants an answer to hi question!!! yes you can put a n/a f-car into the fourteens on only bolt ons. it might be 14.99, but with proper suspension/ tires/ engine tune it is more than possible. i want to see a time slip once the tracks open. i am not trying to be a d**k, but i dont think that we ever helped this guy out.
01-13-2003, 04:25 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 109
Originally posted by 94Camaro
current parts list:
that should work for now. im trying to get a more concise page together detailing the full rebuild and everything. i have pics scattered around taken with digital cameras. i wanna document what i did too, as well as post the final images and some track/dyno times.
-R
current parts list:
- Gen III Aluminum heads :: canted valve - 1.72 in / 1.42 ex - "D" shaped exhaust port
- Lower intake manifold from a 1996 3100 engine (soon to upgrade to 3400 intake)
- upper intake manifold from a 1996 3100 engine (soon to upgrade to a 3400 intake)
- stock 52mm TB from a 1996 3100 engine, soon to be LT1 TB
- RKSport Headers (just try to get pacesetters, they are on a 6 month backorder)
- 19 Lb./hr fuel injectors in true fuel rails (as opposed to the 3.4 block)
that should work for now. im trying to get a more concise page together detailing the full rebuild and everything. i have pics scattered around taken with digital cameras. i wanna document what i did too, as well as post the final images and some track/dyno times.
-R
01-13-2003, 04:31 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 190
LOL. .. ill see what i can come up with. im not about to take anything off the engine right now however.
lets just say that this:
http://camaro.adwire.com/engine2/img/pic.8.jpg
and
http://camaro.adwire.com/engine2/img/pic.9.jpg
are the closest pictures i have to the finished product. i added one thing (EGR->intake piping) and thats it.
ill take a coupla more later.
-R
lets just say that this:
http://camaro.adwire.com/engine2/img/pic.8.jpg
and
http://camaro.adwire.com/engine2/img/pic.9.jpg
are the closest pictures i have to the finished product. i added one thing (EGR->intake piping) and thats it.
ill take a coupla more later.
-R
01-23-2003, 11:18 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 190
Originally posted by 1fastV6
capable yes, reasonable no
capable yes, reasonable no
and dont say James Montigny - cause while he was a pioneer and all that, and he is a friend of mine, he didnt factor in the fuel equation. in fact he and i spent time discussing why bigger fuel injectors were necessary to add to his car, the whole while him telling me they werent and were not going to help his hp quest.
SO. until you have tried everything, and exhausted countless $$$$ on building up a 3.4L. dont talk crap. cause you dont know.
as for the real answer to the guys question. here is my honest reply, and you can quote me on this.
I think: a 3.4L has more potential than GM or anyone else in the world gives credit to. mostly because the 3.4L 60* V6 is naturally balanced, and is used for professional racing in some circles. The 3.4L on that note - has a lot of options in terms of heads and cams and the like, its simply going to take someone getting together all the resources available and putting them into one unit like im trying to do. I was told countless times that the aluminum heads WOULD NOT WORK on the 3.4L OHV in a RWD car. suprise, my car runs great doesnt it? in fact i ran it at the track recently, with a rather depressing time (story behind that one too..im not really a track person i guess)...but i digress. Keep your faith in your car and listen to the people that give you advice that will aid you in your pursuit of the 300 hp mark. dismiss the people that will tell you "forget it swap in a v8" and the people that say things like "its a waste of time" and "capable yes, reasonable no". people like this just dont know, and i personally think they have a fear of you succeeding because that means that they will be wrong.
just my thots on the matter.
-R
01-23-2003, 11:59 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,738
hehe this reminds me.... A freind of mine with an 89 prelude SI told me to give up on my car I woudl never be any faster then a 16.4, I beat that by a whole second 
here is a thought... can't you "bolt on" a turbo?
As for it having potential, it does and the motor is used alot more then you woudl expect.
I forgot the website... I think its www.v6stalker.com Its a kit rail car used for autocrossing and road courses... has a gm 3.4L RWD motor in it. Seen 2 of them in person... and they do fly... Not jsut because of light weight. Guy dynoed his at 190 hp at the wheels.... stock bottom end, heads, and cam... just a differnt style intake with carbs, instead of fuel injection.
here is a thought... can't you "bolt on" a turbo?
As for it having potential, it does and the motor is used alot more then you woudl expect.
I forgot the website... I think its www.v6stalker.com Its a kit rail car used for autocrossing and road courses... has a gm 3.4L RWD motor in it. Seen 2 of them in person... and they do fly... Not jsut because of light weight. Guy dynoed his at 190 hp at the wheels.... stock bottom end, heads, and cam... just a differnt style intake with carbs, instead of fuel injection.
01-23-2003, 01:41 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: san anto, tx
Posts: 805
94camaro, dude! get your head out. yes i own a V8 and no i am not a snooty V8 owner. i also have a V6 that i have put a hell of a lot into. i would think i know what the hell i am talking about. i said capable yes, reasonable no. i didnt say it was impossible nor was i dissing the 3.4.
even you yourself said
now how reasonable is that? maybe it is reasonable for you to spend countless $$$$ on a 3.4, but i dont think the rest of the nation agrees with you. just like most people dont agree on me building up my 3.8. did you forget what forum you are reading?? this is V6 tech and i do own a V6- i aint putting down the 3.4.
so if you want to keep telling people its possible to get 300 hp out of a 3.4 go ahead. even i will be excited when i see it, but if i hear you say its reasonable i will tell the world you are full of shlt.
even you yourself said
SO. until you have tried everything, and exhausted countless $$$$ on building up a 3.4L.
so if you want to keep telling people its possible to get 300 hp out of a 3.4 go ahead. even i will be excited when i see it, but if i hear you say its reasonable i will tell the world you are full of shlt.