200hp 3.4l is it possible without power adder?

[MustangEater8251]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ianwells100:
best 1/4 mile is in the mid 15's, how can that be faster than a car that comes stock running, low 15's high 14's (or somewhere around there)...

<hr></blockquote>

How many people have drien lwo 15s to high 14s DEAD STOCK!

JSut post our time and say it. It relatively rare jsut because one person did it does not mean its possible.

[Ted]

I think that all ianwells was trying to say is that most 3.8 owners on here have modded cars and that once the 3.4 gets to 200hp+, most 3.8s are going to be farther ahead in the game. I don't think he meant that a 3.4 could never out perform a 3.8 because it is illogical.

[95Batmobile]

You guys need to listen to russell, he is a very wise man :cool:

I think you have more than 200hp at the flywheel russell, if you have an auto. I didn't look to see if you were auto or manual, but if you are auto you have a lot more. Our automatic trannies take a lot of power to run, I dyno'd at 115rwhp, everything stock except the TURDnado fuel saver, so thats 45hp loss from the damned automatic. I have done a lot of work since then and I am waiting for a chance to prove to everybody that my 3.4L is among the fastest N/A. I will show you all when it's running high 14s N/A and there will be no beeching or complaining [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, let the guy try for 200hp, some people like to work with what they have instead of taking the high road and swap a V8. And if you don't think my car can beat 3.8Ls, tell that to my friend with a 2001 Camaro ;) (M5, 3.42s, LSD, all that stuff)

[black34v6]

Specs on my car:

Year: 1994
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Camaro
Style: Coupe
Engine: 3.4L (204ci) OHV 60* V6 (upgraded to 3100)
Bore: 3.623"
Stroke: 3.31"
Cylinders: 6
Heads: Gen III Aluminum (1996) with D shaped exhaust ports and oval intake ports - stock condition with stock 1.72 intake and 1.42 exhaust valve.
Intake: Tuned-port style plenum with single bore throttle body
Throttle Body: 50mm stock 3400 TB - 308cfm
Exhaust: RKSport headers to 3" catback exhaust system with torque step (headers-&gt;cat-&gt;2.25" s-pipe-&gt;3" i-pipe back)
Fuel Delivery: stock fuel pump with 19# Fuel injectors from 1996 Grand Am
PCM: stock program
Transmission: Borg-Warner T5 5-speed with no reverse synchronization
Gears:
1st - 3.75
2nd - 2.19
3rd - 1.41
4th - 1.00
5th - 0.72
6th - N/A
rev - 3.53

heres why i posted all this crap -- its in response to that "when a 3.4 gets to 200 hp, the 3.8 could go way farther" post. my car is a stock "hybrid" 31/3400. when i get the 3400 intake and plenum (+10 hp diff. - bigger plenum and intake runners) i will have a STOCK 3400 sitting in my car with the only difference being the more radical camshaft from the RWD engine. now, my engine will be a stock 3400 engine making 200 hp (210?) and 245+ tq - stock. just like the stock 3.8L (3800) makes 200 / 225. so.. if a STOCK 3400 with a rwd cam in it, makes 200 hp, the same as a stock 3.8L...why is the 3.8 better?

im just curious..thanks.. btw - it isnt. and no amount of evidence will prove otherwise. lb for lb the 3.4L is a better engineered motor. the reason that it doesnt perform as well is because gm wasnt thinking "v6 performance" when they brough it out. the 3.4L uses the same tired old iron heads that have been around since 1983 when the 2.8L v6 was introduced (they are EXACTLY the same from 1983-1995!!) - stupid GM..and even after GM developed the aluminum heads for the 60* motor in 1990 - and put them on FWD engines (why i have no idea) and got more hp/tq to the smaller 3.1L engine in the FWD cars, they STILL did not put them on the 3.4L...or the 3.1L in the f-body, even tho the f-body is a sports/performance car and would have deserved them. why? cause the v6 was meant to be a "economy" option. if you wanted performance the dealer would talk you into a v8. it wasnt till around 1995, when they noticed that people were gravitating towards the v6, and the 3.8 was released here in CA - that they actually thought v6 performance. and by then they had developed the Generation III Aluminum heads, a set of heads which flow AS WELL AS the set of heads that are currently on Tiagos car (im serious... they flow that good)

why they didnt use them? dunno...ask GM.

-R

[ October 08, 2003: Message edited by: Russell ]</p>

[toast]

1st you 3400 Russel is no where near stock and if it was then it would have stock 3400 compression, piston, rods, exhaust, intake, etc. Stock 3400 are at 185hp and 205lbs of tq. As far as the the 60 degree engine being a better design well that is debatable. Personally i am not a fan the the 60 degree family of GM engines. Also why went they voted as one of the 10 best engines like the 3.8. The 3.8 has been around alot longer and has a much better track record than any other GM v6 besides the 4.3. GMs best V6 engines are the 90 degrees plain and simple. Both the 4.3 and 3.8 are used and track racing and in nomoures other compotions. I am bashing the 3.4 then soo be it, i am just giving my opion on the the 3.4. Do i think it is weak, yes i do, but do i think it has ponteal, well yea look at Tiango. GM replaced the 3.4 with the 3.8 even after the new 3400 came out because the 3.8 is a better engine nad if the 3400 was in the base camaro in 02 i would have never have bought it. The 3.8 is an awesome engine and one of the best V6s that GM has.
Mustangeater: just because your 3.4 can beat a stock 3.8 with 3.08s does not mean that all 3.8s are slotches. If that were true then i guess my car bever ran a 14.85. :rolleyes:

[95Batmobile]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by toast:

Mustangeater: just because your 3.4 can beat a stock 3.8 with 3.08s does not mean that all 3.8s are slotches. If that were true then i guess my car bever ran a 14.85. :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

Dude, step back a little bit and look at what you're saying.
You are arguing against Russell on points that have alraedy been made, and now you are saying mustangeater can only beat stock 3.8s with 3.08s? You're also forgetting mustangeater ran that with like ONE WHOLE MODIFICATION.
And like I also said, I can beat my friends 2001 3.8... he has 3.42s with LSD against my 3.23s.

But whatever man, there is no use beating a dead horse. If you think the 3.8 is that much more superior then so be it. I don't understand it and I'm not gonna try to change your mind.

[cb1101]

Can I ask A crazy question?

Who gives a rats a$$ which engine is better? that was not the topic..at all! All the guy wanted to know was if it was possible to hit 200 hp on his 3.4 w/o a power adder. Yes it is. for the record.

Toast...I can tell your upset...i couldn't read/understand half the things you were saying in your post.


Russel, in all fairness your car is not stock. Im sure you put a lot of money in that puppy to get it where it is now.

If i am totally out of line I appologize, but i just had to put my .02 in.

Thank you have a great day!

[Ted]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>now, my engine will be a stock 3400 engine making 200 hp (210?) and 245+ tq - stock. just like the stock 3.8L (3800) makes 200 / 225. so.. if a STOCK 3400 with a rwd cam in it, makes 200 hp, the same as a stock 3.8L...why is the 3.8 better?<hr></blockquote>

Who said the 3.8 was better? I said this in my previous post, nobody was getting at that. But you do your cam and all your engine work and it's right about making what the 3.8 is stock, then yea the engines are rated very close to eachother and it's all good. But while you 3.4L guys are doing that. The 3.8L guys are hard at work adding camshafts and all that good stuff and then what are we at? I'll you this much, we're not at no 200hp still. All we're trying to talk about here is potential. Any engine can have potential but after you do all that work on it, how much further can you go?

[black34v6]

sorry but i just have to laugh at pretty much everyone on this thread - cause yanno what. all of the 3.8 owners that are debating that my engine "isnt stock" - you just dont get it. and im not gonna waste my time trying to make you understand anymore. go ahead and think i dont have a stock motor. yes. i did tons of engine work, i ported the heads, and i did valve jobs, and i gasketmatched everything. no the engine isnt stock, its got a huge cam in it too..really..

HAHAHAHAH

-R
[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[Jerriko]

What I find the funniest is if the 3800 is SO great, why has GM decided to discontinue them? This ain't no joke. At school, we have factory reps in all the time and that's what the GM techs told us. As far as block design goes, they rated the newer 3800s and the 93-95 3.4 as the strongest blocks GM made. That's why I decided to make my engine swap to a 3.4 from the 2.8 terd. It's a direct bolt-on. But its sad how this string was transformed from a quest for knowledge into a bunch of crap.
Jim

[black34v6]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by toast:
1st you 3400 Russell is no where near stock<hr></blockquote>

yes it is.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>and if it was then it would have stock 3400 compression, piston, rods, exhaust, intake, etc.
<hr></blockquote>

it does. i have the stock 5.7" forged steel connecting rods. stock crank from the 3400 (it uses the 3.1's crank) i have stock pistons, specifically asked for from Coast Motor supply and acquired from GM as OEM parts, i have a stock 3400 intake, in fact thats what the 31/3400 intake look like (check out the pics here: http://camaro.adwire.com/modpics) the only two things that are different, are my rksport headers, and the fact i have a more aggressive cam - i used the stock 3.4 rwd cam, which is more aggressive than the 3400's cam

3.4L RWD cam:
(flat tappet hydraulic)
109/111.5/196/202/.395/.410

3400 FWD cam:
(roller hydraulic)
109/107/196/196/.395/.395

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Stock 3400 are at 185hp and 205lbs of tq.
<hr></blockquote>

yes they are - and ive talked to a few 3400 owners, and they think im getting better numbers because of the beefier cam. mind you its still the "stock" cam that came in my 3.4L RWD camaro. i never changed it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
As far as the the 60 degree engine being a better design well that is debatable. Personally i am not a fan the the 60 degree family of GM engines. Also why went they voted as one of the 10 best engines like the 3.8. The 3.8 has been around alot longer and has a much better track record than any other GM v6 besides the 4.3. GMs best V6 engines are the 90 degrees plain and simple. Both the 4.3 and 3.8 are used and track racing and in nomoures other compotions. I am bashing the 3.4 then soo be it, i am just giving my opion on the the 3.4. Do i think it is weak, yes i do, but do i think it has ponteal, well yea look at Tiango. GM replaced the 3.4 with the 3.8 even after the new 3400 came out because the 3.8 is a better engine nad if the 3400 was in the base camaro in 02 i would have never have bought it. The 3.8 is an awesome engine and one of the best V6s that GM has.<hr></blockquote>

thats all well and good. but see. the reason the 3.4 was removed from the f-body was because with them trying to beef it to 200 hp (thats what they attempted) - it wouldnt pass smog in CA. and they need a car that is 50 state legal. so if it wasnt for California, the 3.8 would probably not have emerged for some time in the f-body.

you can have your opinion. i know the facts.

[nikkev]

How come no one has mentioned on here that the 3.8 usually dyno's at 150rwhp when bone stock? All you bashers keep saying that the 3.4 is over-rated,but so is the 3.8.Also,Tim LeGros made 200rwhp with a stock internal 3.4 motor,only bolt-ons.He made 295rwhp with nitrous.Peace to the V6 camp and you guys need to get along! [img]graemlins/fluffy.gif[/img]

[black34v6]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by nikkev:
How come no one has mentioned on here that the 3.8 usually dyno's at 150rwhp when bone stock? All you bashers keep saying that the 3.4 is over-rated,but so is the 3.8.Also,Tim LeGros made 200rwhp with a stock internal 3.4 motor,only bolt-ons.He made 295rwhp with nitrous.Peace to the V6 camp and you guys need to get along! [img]graemlins/fluffy.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

thats all conjecture. he never dyno'd without the nitrous.

and the 3.8 manual usually dyno's at 170 rwhp.

[Timbo1969]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MustangEater8251:


How many people have drien lwo 15s to high 14s DEAD STOCK!

JSut post our time and say it. It relatively rare jsut because one person did it does not mean its possible.<hr></blockquote>
Actually if you look at the Timeslips page you'll see that stock 3.8 N/A times start in the mid 16's. Running high 14's is very hard with a stock 3.8 especially if it has the 3.08 open rear end. Actually the only V6 car I've see run in the 14's stock is the GTP, as far as current GM cars go anyway. This site is about modifying your car to make it faster. It's not about which motor is better. So please give the which motor is better debate a rest.

[nikkev]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Russell:


thats all conjecture. he never dyno'd without the nitrous.

and the 3.8 manual usually dyno's at 170 rwhp.<hr></blockquote>


Sure he did.He got his highest NA dyno and his worst N2o dyno on the same day.He dyno'd 199.7? or something like that.And this was in an auto.I am comparing autos to autos here!He did a few more mods and expected to hit 300rwhp+ with nitrous,but actually lost a few ponies on the juice and gained a few NA.I tried to model my old '95 3.4 after his!

[ October 08, 2003: Message edited by: nikkev ]</p>