In your proffessional opinions...

[t-topV6]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

im thinking around mabey 200 hp

[Kronic Budz]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

exhaust-12
intake-5
pulley-3
------------
= 20
just my guess

You forgot headers which are also known to be more effective on 3.4's then 3.8's, so thats at LEAST another 10-15 flywheel, and then another 3-5 hp or so for all the MSD ignition ups he has.

Also, that driveshaft gives him at least another 5 rwhp. Im thinking in the 200 fwhp range.



I put money on you taking a stock 3.8. Any takers?

[vanbibber]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

well,ive seen a full bolt on 3.4 5speed at the track. with a bad 60 (around 2.2 with lsd) and he ran 16.0 @ around 86. at best it could have went maybe 15.8 @ 88.

a stock 3.8 should and can do that no problem.

my guess on the hp, maybe 190hp crank and 155rwhp and maybe high 190srwtq.

heres one guys 3.4 dyno

started, stock engine save for the 3” catback exhaust and K&N FIPK – I had dynoed at 140RWHP and 183RWTQ

fact of the matter is, 3.4s are NOT that responsive to bolt ons. ive had one that was quiet modded and it wasnt much faster than it was stock. id say on a good day it would have been 16 flat at the track. it sucks, but thats the way of the world. the 3.8 is just a better engine.

[tkoforpresident]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

well,ive seen a full bolt on 3.4 5speed at the track. with a bad 60 (around 2.2 with lsd) and he ran 16.0 @ around 86. at best it could have went maybe 15.8 @ 88.

a stock 3.8 should and can do that no problem.

my guess on the hp, maybe 190hp crank and 155rwhp and maybe high 190srwtq.

heres one guys 3.4 dyno



fact of the matter is, 3.4s are NOT that responsive to bolt ons. ive had one that was quiet modded and it wasnt much faster than it was stock. id say on a good day it would have been 16 flat at the track. it sucks, but thats the way of the world. the 3.8 is just a better engine.

i'd have to say it really is remarkable how many bolt ons and what nots it takes just to get to the power of a stock 3.8 I was thinking how there's a .4 liter difference and a 40 hp difference betweent the two stock cars, therefore technically i considered does that mean .1 liter equals 10 hp? That is of course obsurd because if that were the case my car would have 340 hp. The fact is that the 3.8 must have been designed better or something along those lines. Just somethin i was thinking bout. 190 FWHP is about what i was shooting for so i'm please i suppose, of course one day i should just dyno it.

[bah]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

yes, it is a better engine, its been around since the 70s i believe and still remains in the top 10 engines, its bulletproof and the ones in our cars are enhanced even moreso by computer control, its just a more efficient design

[Smoke Panther]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

190 FWHP is about what i was shooting for so i'm please i suppose, of course one day i should just dyno it.

1) your car is making 0 FWHP(Front Wheel HorsePower)
2)Stock, your car is rated for 160HP/200TQ at the flywheel. Adjusting for a generous 10% parasitic drivetrain loss, that means you're making 144HP/160TQ. To gain 50 HP, you're going to have to do internal work, or get a power-adder(nitrous/FI)...and that goes for either the 3.8 or 3.4
3)Dyno it right now, and I'd be thoroughly shocked to see anything higher than 170 RWHP

[97rs4life]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

1) your car is making 0 FWHP(Front Wheel HorsePower)
2)Stock, your car is rated for 160HP/200TQ at the flywheel. Adjusting for a generous 10% parasitic drivetrain loss, that means you're making 144HP/160TQ. To gain 50 HP, you're going to have to do internal work, or get a power-adder(nitrous/FI)...and that goes for either the 3.8 or 3.4
3)Dyno it right now, and I'd be thoroughly shocked to see anything higher than 170 RWHP

FWHP = flywheel horsepower in his example...

Enough bench racing though, get your car to a dyno and you will understand what we are trying to tell ya about the 3.4.

Even the 3.4 with the 3400 top end conversion barely creeped near 200. It needs to really be built up to get over 200-225 rwhp

[mestupryan]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

mmm smells like bench racing in here

[tkoforpresident]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

mmm smells like bench racing in here

i get the point, you certainly don't hear me bragging, thanx for the estimates and the regret of not getting a 3.8 =)

[vanbibber]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

i'd have to say it really is remarkable how many bolt ons and what nots it takes just to get to the power of a stock 3.8 I was thinking how there's a .4 liter difference and a 40 hp difference betweent the two stock cars, therefore technically i considered does that mean .1 liter equals 10 hp? That is of course obsurd because if that were the case my car would have 340 hp. The fact is that the 3.8 must have been designed better or something along those lines. Just somethin i was thinking bout. 190 FWHP is about what i was shooting for so i'm please i suppose, of course one day i should just dyno it.

it has less to do with the size as it does the build of the motor. gm kinda just threw it together. the intake plenum flat out sucks on 3.4s and the heads flow poorly.

the 3400 in the Grand am gt makes better power due to gm improving on those 2 things. (hence why theres a few people who have/ are doing the swap.)

im not one to bash the 3.4, with the right parts it can run just as well as any 3.8, but it'll take more money than a 3.8 will due to its limitations from the factory and very little help from the aftermarket. but if i had to chose which to start with it would definately be a 3800 motor just because you have more to work with from the get go.

[Mogobs30th]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

I cant argue about the performance of the 3.4 compared to the 3.8l. The Series II 3.8l are amazing engines, but I can give credit to the 60* engine as well. Only bad thing is that a 3.4 version is whats left after being bored over and redesigned over and over from its brother the 2.8l. The 60* V6 is a little more stable because of its 60* design, compared to the 3.8l 90* design, which basically means that it can stay smoother, probably a few other things I can't think off the top of my head.

Does the 3.4l have potential, yes. I have seen pics of a SICK setup awhile back, some 1000hp from one, but out of the box, they are unresponsive stock, and to mods. I considered modding my DOHC in the Monte, but the money involved wasn't worth it at all. Catbacks alone for the Monte run in the $1000 range, and any internal work would require piston assemblies from a Northstar engine. Granted, my Monte has slightly more HP than a 3.8l L36 engine, but its weight keeps it right with it.

[Mighty Thor]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

You know the FFF turbo 3.4 puts down 336rwhp and 397tq from a small T04 turbo. And this is from a stock, junkyard engine. It made 297rwhp from a bigger T61 turbo @ 5psi only.

What's the name of that guy who owns that 95 white camaro? Great looking Camaro that he enters a lot in car show. I believe he used to post a lot in the Z28.com V6 messageboard. Didn't he put down 220rwhp with just bolt ons and some tuning? Didn't he ran 14.6 on the track?

Just about any engine can be made to be powerful. Just check out today's issue on Fast Ford & Mustang Mag. There's a 4 cyl. Stang there that's doing 9.2 on the track. And that's a freaking 4 cyl.!!!

[tkoforpresident]

Re: In your proffessional opinions...

You know the FFF turbo 3.4 puts down 336rwhp and 397tq from a small T04 turbo. And this is from a stock, junkyard engine. It made 297rwhp from a bigger T61 turbo @ 5psi only.

What's the name of that guy who owns that 95 white camaro? Great looking Camaro that he enters a lot in car show. I believe he used to post a lot in the Z28.com V6 messageboard. Didn't he put down 220rwhp with just bolt ons and some tuning? Didn't he ran 14.6 on the track?

Just about any engine can be made to be powerful. Just check out today's issue on Fast Ford & Mustang Mag. There's a 4 cyl. Stang there that's doing 9.2 on the track. And that's a freaking 4 cyl.!!!

man, i wouldn't wanna meet that stang on the streets.....