stock 3.4 powerband

[camaro_s10]

whats the powerband of a stock 3.4?

[lando_pr]

Not much after 4500 to 5000RPM

[ April 26, 2003: Message edited by: lando_pr ]</p>

[Magnus]

moving to general tech.

[toady77]

I would say anywhere from about 20-35 mph.Well thats my powerband on mine. Not sure about yours. Since you are talking about a stock 3.4.

[black34v6]

&lt;chuckles&gt;

the answer to your question is about 2000-4500.

its not much of one cause the engine wasnt made for performance (gm just wasnt thinkin bout that when they made the 60* 3.4L back in 1993-95)

[pigglyroot]

the 3.4 itself has been arong long before that, de stroke/bore it and you've got a 2.8L from the '80s

[camaro_s10]

i use to have the 2.8 in my pickup...ya it sucked, i blew it up doing a burnout [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/burnout.gif[/img] ....really broke my heart too :rolleyes:

[94TeaL]

yea its between like 2500 and 5000 my car made peak HP at4700 rpms.... and stayed around there till 4900....

[black34v6]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pigglyroot:
the 3.4 itself has been arong long before that, de stroke/bore it and you've got a 2.8L from the '80s<hr></blockquote>

i know. do you know that the 3.4 isnt just a bored/stroked 2.8L? they actually had to make the block slighty larger to accomidate the larger bore (you cant safely bore a 2.8 from 3.508" to 3.623" (its just not doable..cyl walls become weak - and yes i know about the aftermarket kits, those are sonic tested and all that, but they are playing with fire)

anyway... so the 3.4 was actually "designed" in a sense. and they had an opportunity to fix some inherent problems with the 2.8 such as lack of power, but they didnt, the block was strengthened, and the intake redesigned (it was an improvement from the crappy 2.8/3.1 intake) but that was about it. the 3.4 cam is the same as the 3.1 cam, just a different degree (the 3.1 is 107 ic, the 3.4 is 111.5 ic)

the heads on the 3.1/3.4 are identical, and while the fiero in 89 was using aluminum heads, the camaro in 94 was using cast iron (stupid). so..um...they didnt "design" it for performance, just reused what they had. its gm's attempt at economy for the camaro. not power..you want power? get a v8 (gm's saying in 93-95).

anyway. back to the thread...

-R

[MustangEater8251]

with a catback on I say, up to about 4500-4700 RPMs, with it the exhasut really opened up its up to about 2900-5100ish it feels like.