3800 II turbo need help

[god910]

Ok, here's the deal. I got a 3800 Series II and I have been told if I want to turbo I should get an L67 well I don't have one my is N/A. One of the mechanics at the dealership I used to work at called me and told me he had a motor for me. It's a 3800 series II with about 50,000 miles. The intake gasket let go and leaked some collant into the block and hydro'd a cylinder :twisted: . The car still runs and drives but knocks. SO he put a motor out of a Pontiac in there and swapped the intake from the Pontiac to the other motor (the other had a MAF in the inlet). I need new rods anyway, can I get a rotating mass from an L67 for this block? Is there any other differences. I am not going to go super crazy boost wise but I WANT to do this. This will be swapped into my 92 Cutlass. (A while back I got beat by a V6 Camaro :oops: and that won't do) I also don't have a wiring harness or PCM for this. Since I am not going to go crazy with boost can I use an L67 PCM and use boost signal the same or no? Any help would be appreciated. I asked on another board and they were no help. Thanks alot.

Jay Warfel
Muncie, IN

I do not recommend using the 3800. Yes it is a pushrod motor, but it is not a 60*. It is a 90*, and there are some issues with it. you run the risk of blowing it up for starters. The SC gets a re-inforced block, but the NA does not. Also, it does not have a regular piston/connecting rod/crank setup. It is a split pin setup (that I personally do not like). Basically, what that is, is instead of having 1 connecting rod to every lobe in the crank, with a total of 6 lobes, there are only 3 lobes, and the connecting rods share. 2 rods to every lobe. With that setup, you run the risk of them catching just righ, and throwing a rod, meaning, one of the pistons is going to come out to say hello.

I recommend going with a 60* motor for a turbo setup, or if you just ABSOLUTLY have to have a 3800, then try to get the SC one. At least it has a stronger block.

Taylor

also, as to being beat by a camero, it is not unusual for that. For startes, that car is lighter, and depending on the year, then it either has a 3400, or a 3800. I am not sure about the 3800, but I do know that the 3400 that they put in there is diferant in the way it is tuned than the 3400 they put in the Grand Am's, Alero's, and Impala's. I do not know if the 3800 they use is a 60* or a 90*, and I have not looked into it seeing that if I go buy one, then I will get the V-8.

Taylor

I believe the 3800 (acutally the 3800 Series II) in the Camero is the same as in FWD cars. it will be a 200HP 90degree version with a ton of torgue (225ftlbs). I have seen stock performance test numbers of these cars in the low 7s 0-60 So unless you have a healthy 3.4DOHC or a very tricked out 3.1/3100, I wouldn't consider racing one. The easiest way to tell is if it has the 98 and newer from nose, stay away. It will eat you, even the V6. Now the older 3400 cards were a tad slow, but still faster than the V6 version Mustangs of the same year. it still was not quick, but probably as good or better than most 3100 powered W-bodies.

I have a question about the TGPs I have seen the original performance numbers on these things, are they running better now with age? or are most of them tricked out by the owners that they are running high 13? or even 14's for that matter. I thought I remember seeing tests putting their 0-60 around the mid 8's. If someone has some links to old test articles, I'd love to read them again.

I also mention the TGP thing since my first car was a 89' Sunbird GT turbo. I clearly remember a wonderful fight for about 5 stop lights, and 5 miles of road. I constantly and completely trounced on it from a start, was about 2 and a half car lenghts ahead by 60, and held it off until around 95. That and my turbo car was only the 3sp auto. I miss that car too. *sobs*
I had the old Vericom performance computer, and could constistantly run sub 7.4 0-60s and 15.8's in the quarter. It never ran slower (with it hot, and poor launch) 7.8.

HUH! I just found a Road and Track test...

7.0 and 15.3 I must be thinking of a Car and Driver article..

tops speed of 128... Hmmm..... Though not all cars, even the same model, are created equal.

:oops:

[RedCutlassSL]

Just to let you all know, I once throughly kicked a 95 Camaro V6 ass. I had
him the entire way. And remember, I've got the 3100, and this guy had a stick I think.

Yeah, the older 3.4L powered camaros aren't impressive. The V6 Mustangs are even worse. I raced some dude in a convertable with a company vehicle (Ford Explorer XLT with the 4L V6). I won.
:guns: FORD

Hey I had no choice in driving the Ford. Hell, it was peppy, also took out a automatic Subaru 2.5RS, and riced out early 90's Eclipse with that thing, heheh. Ok so that should have all been in the racing section.

[eclipse5302]

I do not recommend using the 3800. Yes it is a pushrod motor, but it is not a 60*. It is a 90*, and there are some issues with it. you run the risk of blowing it up for starters. The SC gets a re-inforced block, but the NA does not. Also, it does not have a regular piston/connecting rod/crank setup. It is a split pin setup (that I personally do not like). Basically, what that is, is instead of having 1 connecting rod to every lobe in the crank, with a total of 6 lobes, there are only 3 lobes, and the connecting rods share. 2 rods to every lobe. With that setup, you run the risk of them catching just righ, and throwing a rod, meaning, one of the pistons is going to come out to say hello.

I recommend going with a 60* motor for a turbo setup, or if you just ABSOLUTLY have to have a 3800, then try to get the SC one. At least it has a stronger block.

Taylor

Aren't many V-8's like that...with two rods per journal?

Oh, I just saw this on the ThrasherEP website...this is a crank from a L67 SC engine...

http://www.turboste.com/crank.gif

Is that split-pin design?

Jason

[god910]

If they weren't then they would be like 7 feet long. I just didn't want to say anything.

Split pin is when they take the pins and split them. I don't know of any V-8's that have a split pin setup (unless it is a 90* V-8). Every crank that I have seen from a v8 has been just like the one the one in my 2.8 except that it has 2 more lobes, and one more main. If you take the crank out of a 60* motor, then you will find that there is one pisten for every connecting rod, and each connecting rod is attached to it's own lobe on the crank. In the 3800, there is 1 piston per connecting rod, but 2 connecting rods per lobe in the crank. Basically, if I were to take a 3800 crank and try to put it into anything other than a 3800, it would be a 3-cylinder. Likewise, if I were to put a 2.8 crank into a 3800, it would be a possible to make it work (not really, but the 3800 has only 3 lobes to work with, and the 2.8 has 6 lobes to work with). I do not know of a single V8 that GM is making right now that uses a split pin setup, but if you do know of one, then please let me know, so that i can look into it to learn how they keep it from blowing up.

Just one more little FACT that you might like to know. It took GM 5 years to make the 2.8/3.1 to a point where it did not blow pistons. It has taken GM 30 years to get the 3800 where it is now, and only the 3800 SERIES 1, and the 3.8 TURBO are the only ones that are not prone to blowing pistons. That is why I stick to the 60* motors. I have a 2.8 with 312,000 miles on it (it just rolled over today) and I do not have a single problem with it. It is complete BONE STOCK with the exception of the programming being switched to the 1989 programming, and I put a new cam shaft in it. The original cam was over 50% worn away, but I was getting 35 miles per gallon. Just no performance. Aside from that, the motor is all original (only replaced things that are replaced in routine maintenance) and it is still going very strong, but I do not know of a single 3800 over 200,000.

Taylor

[eclipse5302]

Thats some good info. I thought all chevy v-8's are 90 degree? I understand what you are saying about 60 degree v6s lasting a long time, but I've heard really good things about 3800's too.

Here are some pics of cranks...

Chevy V8, (split pin?-2 rods per journal)

http://www.turboste.com/v8-crank.jpg


and a L67 crank (not split pin?, 1 rod per journal)

http://www.turboste.com/crank.gif

Am I not understanding what split pin design means? Are there some 3800s that aren't split pin? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just trying to clarify things for myself.

Jason

[god910]

I can honestly say that of all the V-8 cranks I have seen they all share 2 rods per lobe. As far as split pin, from what I understand it doesn't have anything to do with the pin, it is the lobe of the crank... I was wrong once before. Here is a link to the Ford V-10 split pin. Read about the Triton 6.8 split pin. http://www.northcountyford.com/trucks/f-450/ford_f-450.asp
And here is a page showin the pic of a split pin crankshaft. Mercedes I believe... http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/tooling/archives/0600/0600tu.asp

[eclipse5302]

I see, so split pin actually means the crankshaft connecting rod journals are seperated....for example the 60 degree v6 has a split pin crank, so does the L67 crank (see pic in above post). But the above picture of the V8 crank is NOT a split pin setup.

When you "split" the pins, you are seperating the crankshaft journals for each connecting rod. So because my Turbo 3.1 has a seperate journal for each rod, it is a split pin design. Almost all V8s are NOT the split pin design.

I'm assuming that since the 3800 L67 (SC) engine uses a split pin design, all the S2 3800's do. I've never had a S1 3800 apart yet, so I don't know about those. But once I get the S1 3800 for my turbo build, I'll check that out.

But, my Chevy Performance book sez:

"Chevrolet Special Products strongly recommends forged steel common-pin (not split pin) cranks for all maximum effort racing engines. The recommended crankshaft configuration for competition V6/90 engines is referred to as common pin journal design. A common pin V6 crankshaft has rod journals which are not offset; the connecting rods on each throw are side-by-side. This design provides more bearing area and less rod offset that a splayed pin (split-pin) crank."

Word.

Jason

that is right but backwards. split pin is when they split the connecting rod, not the crank. The 60* is not a split pin, but the 90* is. Also, that mercedes crank is a split pin setup. You see how it has 2 connecting rods right next to each other? The 3800 is like that however, there is no differance in height. They are right next to each other without a differance in hieght so instead of it looking like there are 6 journals, there are only 3 wide ones. I will try to find some pics.

Taylor

[eclipse5302]

So the Chevy Performance book is wrong? That isn't what split pin means?

And that second picture I posted above is from a L67 Series 2 3800 SC engine. That crank looks just like the crank in my Turbo 3.1 60 degree V6. How is that 3800 crank a split pin design and my Turbo 3.1 crank isn't?

One more time a comparision...

L67 Series 2 3800 Crankshaft...
http://65.29.169.70/l67_crank.gif


Turbo 3.1 V6 60 degree Crankshaft...
http://65.29.169.70/turbo_31_crank.jpg


Chevy V8 Crankshaft...
http://65.29.169.70/v8_crank.jpg

So can you tell me how the 3800 crank is a split pin setup and the 60 degree v6 crank isnt? It clear the v8 crank isn't a split pin setup. There are 3 pictures of the engines we are talking about. Please tell me why the 3800 crank is split pin and the turbo 3.1 crank isn't.

Jason

you notice how the 1&2, 3&4, and 5&6 are almost even with each other on the 3800, but how in the 60* one, they are farther away from each other? That is how. That is also why the 3800 needs a balance shaft, and the 60* does not.

[eclipse5302]

You are right about the 3800 needing a balance shaft because the lobes aren't seperated that much. But split pin (splayed pin) means that NONE of the connecting rods share a lobe. The 3800 and 3.1 cranks are good examples. Sure, the 3800 is like only 20 degrees apart and the 3.1 is more like 90 degrees apart; that is why the 3.1 doesn't have a balance shaft and the 3800 does. But a non split pin (common pin) crank means that 2 rods SHARE a lobe. The V8 crank is a great example.

It's either they share a lobe, or they don't. Regardless of how far apart they are. All of that aside, I don't feel as though the crank design makes the 3800 a bad engine. I feel as though a 3800 can be built to survive just as much as a 3.1. Example, 3.8 Turbo GN. Yes, it's rear wheel drive, but it's still a 90 degree V6.

Jason

[god910]

So, would I be better off with a S1 3800 N/A block for my turbo motor or what? I just want to turbo a 3800 and put it in my Cutlass that's all. Help me do this please. Before you tell me it's a bad idea, give me good ideas about downpipe routing, max d/p size, turbo placement, I/C piping and placement. Any info would be great, as long as it's telling me how, and not how not to, do this swap.

[eclipse5302]

Yea, sorry I got out of hand there. Kinda traveled away from the topic.

Well, I can tell you how I plan on doing the Turbo 3800 in my Cutlass...

First, I'm not sure if I'm going to use a Series 1 or 2...I'm thinking of a Series 1. There will need to be better pistons, rods, cam, rings, blah, blah. OF course a L67 block would be a great idea as it's mostly upgraded and it is built for boost, but you'll need to figure out how to plug the injector holes in the heads so you can use the holes in the intake manifold that you'll need to use from a N/A 3800. Not a lot of work...but I'm still not decided on that one.

But, the crossover will need to be custom, and the exhaust manifolds might be too. I'm going to make a 2.5 or 3 inch downpipe, and wrap it in header wrap after it gets JotHot coated.

As for turbo placement, I'm going to go with roughly a TGP setup. That way I won't have to spend cash on a custom intercooler and I won't have to spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel. I like the placement of everything on the TGPs.

Then which trans? I've got a built 4T60-E and a HM-282 5 speed. I'm thinking 4T60-e because they are easier to launch/drive/race. But the manual is fun too. I still need to decide.

Lastly, and most importantly, the electrionics. Maybe a TGP wiring harness/chip? Maybe something else? I'm not sure yet.

Hope this stuff helps, and watch my site for news about this project...I'll be starting it in a few months. I need to do some major planning/testing before I start something like this.

Jason

[TGPilot]

Then which trans? I've got a built 4T60-E and a HM-282 5 speed. I'm thinking 4T60-e because they are easier to launch/drive/race. But the manual is fun too. I still need to decide.


Jason

Auto cars are easier to drive, but you lose so much wheel power with one. Nothing like the feeling of pure power to the ground and not a tranny slipping and shifting!! Just the though of having that huge weight on the end of the crank called a torque converter!! :puke: I would never go back to an Auto tranny in my TGP. I would definitely run a different clutch though :roll:

8)

[eclipse5302]

Yea, I would need to spend some cash on a clutch...but I've already got the complete rebuilt trans already...so I could just drop it in. I agree about the feeling of power with the 5-speed. But the auto I built in my TurboSTE is holding up fine, without slipping so far.

Jason

[GnatGoSplat]

Taylor, after looking at the L67 crank pics, I don't know how you can say:


They are right next to each other without a differance in hieght so instead of it looking like there are 6 journals, there are only 3 wide ones. I will try to find some pics.


The pic clearly shows 6 separate journals on that crank. The 1-2 and 3-4 journals look to me like they have significant differences in height.

Also, everything I've read says the 3800 Series II SC and NA blocks are one and the same. I believe this to be true, because in the parts catalog the only part #'s that don't match between the L67 and L36 are the pistons, wrist pins, and connecting rods.

[eclipse5302]

Thats what I was trying to say. I'm glad I'm not losing it / seeing things...

Thats cool, I can just get a N/A block and upgrade the pistons/rods/etc.

I think the heads are different too, Shawn. They've got holes tapped for the injectors (because there is no room to put them in the intake monifold with the SC in the way). Are there different part numbers for them too?

Jason

[GnatGoSplat]

Right, the heads and intake manifolds are different as well.
I was just focusing on the bottom end. :D

[god910]

Cool so with a N/A S2 Block I can do as I asked in intial post right? Since I have a bent rod get rotating mass from a L67 and I am good to go for 35 psi right. (That is obviously a joke.) My block in N/A so no plugging of injector bungs. Eclipse I think you should install the 60 and give me the manual. Or sell it whatever. LOL. (Changed oil at Wal-Mart for 2 years, saw only TWO manual w-body's. Ain't that some $|-| ! +

[eclipse5302]

Not sure what I'm going to do yet. If I put the manual back in to the Cutlass, I'll need a 3800 flywheel. But to work in the HM-282, it will need to be grinded down. Don't know yet, everything is still up in the air on this project.

Jason

[GnatGoSplat]

Cool so with a N/A S2 Block I can do as I asked in intial post right? Since I have a bent rod get rotating mass from a L67 and I am good to go for 35 psi right. (That is obviously a joke.) My block in N/A so no plugging of injector bungs. Eclipse I think you should install the 60 and give me the manual. Or sell it whatever. LOL. (Changed oil at Wal-Mart for 2 years, saw only TWO manual w-body's. Ain't that some $|-| ! +

Yep. I don't see anything wrong with that.
A turbo Series II should make quite a bit more power than an L67.

[gpse3200]

Ok. That 3800 crank is split pin. You all want to know why. Well since that motor came from V8 it didn't fire smoothly, big soft mushy motor mounts were used but it wasn't enough. The original crank used to look like the SB Chevy crank which isn't split pin in the slightest. To make the 3.8 fire evenly they had to splay the rod journal or pins as it were. THAT CREATES A WEAKER CRANK known as the EVEN FIRE. The ODD FIRE wouldv'e been stronger but was susceptible to the rough and wako IGN timing. The 60 Deg V6 has indivdual rod journals, not connected to each other. What separates those journals is either a counter weight, reluctor, or on the IRON headed motor just your ususal connection point between throws like an SB chevy crank. In fact the 60 deg v6's journals, rod and main are about as big if not the metric size as an SB Chevy, so thats durabilty right there. The pins on the 3800 are not separated for the most part by those listed. LOOK AT THE 3.8 CRANK! THE JOURNALS ARE NOT SEPARATED, ALL YOU SEE IS A FLANGE FOR THE CONNECTING ROD AND THAT IS MADE ONLY DUE TO THE SHEARING OF THE THROWS(flyingweb)! THE 60 DEG HAS INDIVIDUAL THROWS FOR EVERY ROD! THE V8 SHARES ROD JOURNALS BUT THE THOWS AREN'T SEPARATED!! Also don't confuse the main bearing journals either. The throws on the 3800 are initally one together like a V8, but when the crank is made in the casting process they shear the throws to get that split pin setup all because this particular 90 deg v6 is based off a v8 and for a more normal firing, you can't just use a chopped crank, you have to split it. With that creates a weakness and alignment issues, god forbid if a rod becomes off center for a hot instant, either through bearing wear, hot rodding or whatever, you can say goodbye to that bottom end. With this setup there is absolutely no tolerance for misalignment esspcially at cylinders #1 and 2, that long front snount doesn't help that situation. The 4.3 is split the same way, but they didn't splay the pins as much to be a true even fire, thus Chevy's crank is a lot stronger. Instead they took a balance between vibration and reliablilty and they got a strong, similarly smooth motor all by knocking out cylinders #3 and #6 making 62% less vibration than your 3 pin odd fire 90 deg v6. I'd love to see that motor in a car with vortec v8 style heads. I don't know what GM did to the turbo 3.8 motor But I'll trust that one much more than the others. I'm sure GM went to great measures to make that motor strong enough to handle all that forced induction. But even with the even fire crank, the motions are still not soft enough, thus the balance shaft is used.

All of this just to clear the air:)

[RedZMonte]

I do not recommend using the 3800. Yes it is a pushrod motor, but it is not a 60*. It is a 90*, and there are some issues with it. you run the risk of blowing it up for starters. The SC gets a re-inforced block, but the NA does not. Also, it does not have a regular piston/connecting rod/crank setup. It is a split pin setup (that I personally do not like). Basically, what that is, is instead of having 1 connecting rod to every lobe in the crank, with a total of 6 lobes, there are only 3 lobes, and the connecting rods share. 2 rods to every lobe. With that setup, you run the risk of them catching just righ, and throwing a rod, meaning, one of the pistons is going to come out to say hello.

I recommend going with a 60* motor for a turbo setup, or if you just ABSOLUTLY have to have a 3800, then try to get the SC one. At least it has a stronger block.

Taylor
the block is physically the same.. the internals on a L67 are stronger but not so magicly stronger that it won't blow up under high ammounts of boost as well. L36's with the ZZP S/C are holding up fine. I say rebuild it.. if you have access to the L67 internals then put them in.. if not then don't worry about it. sence its apart allready i also say do a cam. as for the PCM it will understand the boost. but you will proibly need to get a 2 bar map sensor. Post on Clubgp about it they will tell you what you can/need to do with it.

redZ

[GnatGoSplat]

I don't know what GM did to the turbo 3.8 motor But I'll trust that one much more than the others.

The Turbo 3.8 motor is a split pin design as well. The 90-degree 3.8L has been split pin since 1977.
The 3800 has only seen improvements in its design since the Turbo 3.8L of '87 as well.
The Series I improved upon the 3.8L, the Series II improved upon the Series I.

[gpse3200]

I belive I now remember what they did to the turbo motor......most of it was FORGED almost completely and was heavy as if it couldn't get any heavier....Like I said..if I were to go with this wacky design I'd be pumping the Turbo engine because even though it is not as strong as other simliarly powered engines, but at least most of its parts were forged and that took care of the the reliability issues at higher power with the GN.

[90 6000se awd]

Ok let me see I have both a 60* 3.1 crank and a 90* 3800 crank in front of me and both have split rod journals the term split pin is old school talk and a common mistake is to assume the split journal cranks are weak.
kenny dutwiller runs a 3.8 turbo with split journals at over 900Hp.
the difference between a 60* and a 90* crank that I can see is the journal size the 90* is quite a bit bigger, but the stroke is a lot longer,
leading me to believe the 60* will rev better


just my $.02

[eclipse5302]

Which is correct.

[brian89gp]

I know from browsing many a Sy_Ty (the 4.3 engine referred to earlier) forum that when they upgrade the crank they go to a odd-fire shared? pin crank for strength.

For the turbo, I'd go and find a L36 and put the L67 rotating mass in (if you get a L67 then you have to swap off the heads and intake for L36 ones cause of the M90). I am fairly certain that the above engine will run with OBD1 3800 series 1 ECM and wiring; this way you get rid of the PITA OBD2 and the wiring should be a lot easier and cheaper (as well as tuning).

[god910]

How sure are we about the motor running off of a Series 1 ECM. I have a S1 ECM and harness and series II L36 and am getting a L67 rotating mass. (As explained earlier) If that would work it would make this swap alot easier. P.S. I have a SII with both MAP and MAF. Can I kill the map and use a SI ECM or did they have an S1 w/ both?

[GnatGoSplat]

Series I ECM on a Series II has been done by Terry Kelly who was on the GM-ECM list awhile back (I'm no longer on it so I don't know if he is or not).

So, it has been done.

[brian89gp]

Oops, I only skimmed the thread before posting. As far as I know they are the same engine and use the same sensors. Of course the s2 would have twice the number of sensors but that is only cause OBD2 is a pain in the ass.

I would try to find MAP only. MAF is good for s/c, but for turbo the MAP is better. I was thinking that Tom's friend (white Fiero with l67) was using a s1 ecm, but don't quote me on it. I am betting that it is backwards compatible (like 3100 running off a 3.1 ecm).

And I have heard of a turbo l67 in a Fiero (Chris West) and all i could get out of him about the car was "too damn fast".

[SuperBuick]

Why not just use a series 1 3800 alltogether. It is built just as heavy if not heavier than the series 2 N/A. While the heads in stock form wont flow as well, they can easily be worked to. Plus with the series 1 you have a much much better intake manifold design that doesnt crack and leak coolant, and is alloy so you can port it or extrude hone it. the local turbo Buick guy told me he wouldn't even think twice about using a series 1 over a series 2 for turbocharging purposes.

-Tom

[Steve LS]

I'll second that. That L36 with that intake sounds like a real disappointment and may only be worse with a turbo feeding it. I dont know about the rotating mass of the L67 advantages but it is tougher . Theres a guy doing a TC for a Hbody and hes built a mean L67 as well so he know the motors. He chose a L67 block with series I heads for turbo. Dont remember the specifics and the post is long gone. Its a big project he's doing so its no bolt up simple thing.

I have long forgot where I read the artical so I dont have a link but someone built a old FWD 3.8 up to 500 horse and insane RPM's before it grenaded so I would think you'd be good with a Series I engine and some manifold head work. But then you have this L36 already right. If it has a bent rod its most likely from http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1245 Mostly read the first few posts but the second guy mentions the hydro locking of the engine.