UA-65274002-1

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

LQ1/LX9/LZ9 compare.. LQ1 stroker?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 pshojo

pshojo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Locationiowa

Posted 19 June 2018 - 01:23 PM

So, i'm seeing the 3.5 and the 3.9 have same spec journal size and rod lengths.  many sizes are comparable to the 3.4L.  It appears the difference between the 3.5 and the 3.9 is crank and bore.  Piston pins are comparable. Anyone ever look into some of these components before? If nothing else, this might be a way to upgrade a 3.5 with stroke of 3.9 to give better torque curve, even if you don't bore an engine out..

 

However for conversation wise... Looks like in order to use the 3.9 or 3.5L cranks i would have to turn down the crank journal 4mm to use in LQ1.. can this be done?  Who does this type of stuff?  just randomly thinking...

 

for your reading pleasure

LZ9

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/Photo%20Library/HVV6/06%203.9L%20V6%20LZ9%20G6A%20LoR.jpg

LX9

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/Photo%20Library/HVV6/Lx9_pontiac-g6.jpg

3.4/3400

http://gmengines.blogspot.com/2010/02/gm-34l-la1-3400-specifications.html?_sm_au_=iVVZVvMDqJQZlsJF

 

PS, i know most of the performance stuff is no longer available for the LQ1...

I'm trying to do crash course on learning with my LQ1..

Are th 96 heads worth grabbing and upgrading? what else is worth grabbing or doing if i can still find remnants?  thanks all.



#2 mfewtrail

mfewtrail

    Contributing Member

  • Contributing Member
  • 6,767 posts

Posted 20 June 2018 - 05:15 AM

This might be of some interest to you: http://www.60degreev...a-stroker-lq1  There are likely more threads than that over there on this subject.

 

Personally, I would go with forced induction instead.


93 SE, '90 Black/tan TGP, & '90 Red/tan TGP


#3 Nas Escobar

Nas Escobar

    #1 Stunna

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,042 posts
  • LocationDistrict of Columbia

Posted 20 June 2018 - 09:27 PM

So, i'm seeing the 3.5 and the 3.9 have same spec journal size and rod lengths.  many sizes are comparable to the 3.4L.  It appears the difference between the 3.5 and the 3.9 is crank and bore.  Piston pins are comparable. Anyone ever look into some of these components before? If nothing else, this might be a way to upgrade a 3.5 with stroke of 3.9 to give better torque curve, even if you don't bore an engine out..

 

However for conversation wise... Looks like in order to use the 3.9 or 3.5L cranks i would have to turn down the crank journal 4mm to use in LQ1.. can this be done?  Who does this type of stuff?  just randomly thinking...

 

for your reading pleasure

LZ9

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/Photo%20Library/HVV6/06%203.9L%20V6%20LZ9%20G6A%20LoR.jpg

LX9

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/Photo%20Library/HVV6/Lx9_pontiac-g6.jpg

3.4/3400

http://gmengines.blogspot.com/2010/02/gm-34l-la1-3400-specifications.html?_sm_au_=iVVZVvMDqJQZlsJF

 

PS, i know most of the performance stuff is no longer available for the LQ1...

I'm trying to do crash course on learning with my LQ1..

Are th 96 heads worth grabbing and upgrading? what else is worth grabbing or doing if i can still find remnants?  thanks all.

 

I wouldn't even mess with the 96-97 stuff. 96-97 were interference whereas 91-95 weren't. I had the belt snap on me once, had it been interference, I'd have a 3800 S/C Cutlass now.


  • Imp558 likes this

2003 Pontiac Grand Am (01/12 - 08/13)

1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme

2002 Chevrolet Camaro (09/13 - 07/16)

1996 Infiniti G20

1993 Chevrolet Lumina Z34

1989 Buick Regal Limited (06/16 - 01/17)

1994 Chevrolet Cavalier RS

2009 Pontiac G6

1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z28


#4 Imp558

Imp558

    Proud TransCelestialsexual

  • Moderators
  • 5,472 posts
  • LocationErie PA.

Posted 20 June 2018 - 09:28 PM

I wouldn't even mess with the 96-97 stuff. 96-97 were interference whereas 91-95 weren't. I had the belt snap on me once, had it been interference, I'd have a 3800 S/C Cutlass now.

 

Why wait for catastrophe?


Banner2.png

"If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough" - Mario Andretti

1996 Buick Regal L67/4T65E-HD swapped - 1995 Buick Regal GS - 1980 Dodge Sno-Commander - 1968 Empi Imp on '67 Pan - 2001 Chevrolet Express 3500  

Her Stuff: 1996 SSEi - 2001 Monte Carlo SS


#5 crazyd

crazyd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts

Posted 03 July 2018 - 09:41 PM

You might as well consider Gen 1/2 LQ1 to be interference too.  While the valves and pistons might not hit each other, lots of other things have the potential to do catastrophic damage if that belt ever breaks.  I had one let go in 2008 and it snapped the timing chain, broke the auxiliary shaft, cracked the inner aluminum timing cover and the outer plastic timing cover.  How?  The belt wrapped around the main drive pulley until it seized.  At that point it was nothing more than a parts motor and it was junkyard time for another one.  The only circumstance that won't do damage is if the tensioner actuator fails and the belt gets loose enough to shear off its teeth without actually breaking.  Had that happen too in 2012.


062012190316.jpg?m=1402743311

92 ASC GTP-3.4 284 5sp, HUD, DIC, AQ9's

88 Fiero GTs - L32 3.4 & ZZ430 5.7 282 5sp - the twins

'04 Z06 Corvette Convertible - parts getter in a hurry

'14 Escalade ESV Platinum - Toy Hauler


#6 Galaxie500XL

Galaxie500XL

    Senior Member

  • Contributing Member
  • 2,934 posts
  • LocationKnoxville, Tennessee

Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:41 PM

I lost two timing belts on my '95 LQ1 Cutlass.  One at idle in the driveway, and the second driving at 45 MPH.

 

No damage either time...but plenty of colorful language. :mad:


  • Imp558 likes this

galaxie500xl

1993 LT1 Corvette Coupe

1988 Camaro IROC-Z 5.7 TPI 5-speed

2015 Chevrolet Equinox LTZ

GONE to a new home... 1995 Cutlass DOHC Convertible, 3rd Quarter 2012 W-Body.com COTQ





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users