well i found the proof of 280HP+

[GrandPrix34]

The top of the line engine was set to be the 24 valve 3.4L DOHC V6 that GM had developed from the 2.8L engine block. At the time it was making 285HP+ in development and if a transmission could be made to handle it GM fully intended to go into production around that figure. What is interesting is how similar those figures are to the initial 4th generation offering in 1993. One can't help but wonder if the FWD F-body might have been faster than the RWD one we craved. The 3.4L also is significant because though it was the basis for the Cadillac Northstar and 3.5L "Shortstar", development costs were staggering making it GM's most expensive V6 ever. All these advances cost money but the projected $22,000 dollar cost for the time of introduction in 1989 isn't so bad when compared to the $24,000+ that the 1989 20th Anniversary Trans Am sold for.

 

 

here's the link

http://www.gminsidenews.com/GM80.htm

[Mike J.]

So apparently, GM had to detuned it by about 40% just to match the crappy trans that they had available, rather than build one 8 years later in the 4t65e ? I like GM but they do things piecemeal. They should make everthing bulletproof and failproof and idiotproof like in older cars.

[GnatGoSplat]

Some guy by the name of Mike(?) that was on the first Lumina Z34 forum a long, long time ago, claimed to work at the Oshawa plant in Canada. He also claimed they indeed had the 280HP 3.4 DOHC on display in that plant, and the placard on it said it had Variable Valve Timing.

 

I don't know if the guy was for real or if that's true, but that would explain where 80HP disappeared to. VVT makes a huge difference. There is definitely no loss of 80HP in the chip or anything like that.

[topless94style]

VVT heard of it but not exactly sure what it is. Explain better please and why cant we add it to our 3.4L?

[GnatGoSplat]

VVT = Variable Valve Timing.

Here's a good article about it:

 

http://www.autospeed.co.nz/cms/article.html?&A=1606

 

It can't be added to the 3.4 because no company has made cam phasers to fit it. I think the cam lobes themselves would need to be optimized to take variable timing into consideration. I also think (although I could be wrong) that cam sprockets with variable cam phasers in them would be too difficult for a DIY'er to fabricate, so some company would need to manufacture them.

 

If they existed, they could be added fairly easily.

[Brian P]

So apparently, GM had to detuned it by about 40% just to match the crappy trans that they had available, rather than build one 8 years later in the 4t65e ? I like GM but they do things piecemeal. They should make everthing bulletproof and failproof and idiotproof like in older cars.

 

bulletproof means GM will lose $ cause cars and original parts will last very long. I cant see that happening. They're in the business of making $ 8)

[GPdriver1986]

Cars these days are not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect car, if someone made the perfect car then everybody would buy it. Cars are made by humans and robots. Its all about money these days.

 

I never heard of any 3.4L on display in Oshawa but it is possible that there was one because we make/made most of the w-bodies here. It could also be possible that the engine was also on display at St.Catherines thats where they made the 3.4.

[GnatGoSplat]

I never heard of any 3.4L on display in Oshawa but it is possible that there was one because we make/made most of the w-bodies here. It could also be possible that the engine was also on display at St.Catherines thats where they made the 3.4.

 

You're right, maybe it was St. Catherines.

You work in a GM factory? If so, maybe you could do a little investigating?

[NOHC_WBody]

That would explain the FWD 3.4 Camaro test mules on JJ's 3.4 page.

 

Besides. This thing looks more like a bloated Saturn coupe with a Riviera tail on it. Maybe that's the direction it went.

 

You can see some 4th gen F Body in it, the C pilars, the rear glass, mostly the overall shape of it.

[GPdriver1986]

No I don't (I'm only 17, I tried to apply for a co-op but I didn't get the job) but this whole city practically works for GM.

[91GranSport]

Well, the new Northstar in the Cadillac XLR has variable valve timing but the gain is only about 10HP or so. That's a bit strange, eh? I don't doubt what you're saying though, variable valve timing makes a hell of a difference. The only downside to it is that the peak horsepower and torque comes at a higher RPM. At least that's what I heard.

 

Some guy by the name of Mike(?) that was on the first Lumina Z34 forum a long, long time ago, claimed to work at the Oshawa plant in Canada. He also claimed they indeed had the 280HP 3.4 DOHC on display in that plant, and the placard on it said it had Variable Valve Timing.

 

I don't know if the guy was for real or if that's true, but that would explain where 80HP disappeared to. VVT makes a huge difference. There is definitely no loss of 80HP in the chip or anything like that.

[lolumz34]

I never heard of any 3.4L on display in Oshawa but it is possible that there was one because we make/made most of the w-bodies here. It could also be possible that the engine was also on display at St.Catherines thats where they made the 3.4.

 

You're right, maybe it was St. Catherines.

You work in a GM factory? If so, maybe you could do a little investigating?

 

 

 

my uncle have a friend who used to work in the St catharines plant. He's retired now.

 

He also told me stories about the more hp and the detuned engine.

Said that they had the 280hp version to test. To much torque steer.

 

If was scary, he knew EVERYTHING about my car. It was almost like GM knew when the parts were going to fail.

[patgizz]

 

If was scary, he knew EVERYTHING about my car. It was almost like GM knew when the parts were going to fail.

 

they probably did, and adjusted the warranty accordingly so as to cover nothing

[Aaron]

look guys. GM is a multi-billion dollar company, they can afford to build a tranny that can hold 280 lousy hp. it aint that much. they can do it. the reason the lumina didnt have 280hp is cuz they didnt want a Lumina bitch slapping their vettes. htink about it, 280hp 6000redline RWD vette, or 280hp FWD 7000redline lumina? the lumine would prowess. look at the iroc, stock i ran right beside iroc 5.7s.

[Guest RedCutlassSL]

aaron, you believe that don't you?

[z34_nut]

i remeber this topic from efi-street, and i'm not 100% sure of the truth. of course GM could produce a transmission that could handle 280 HP, but with front wheel drive, torque steer is a major issue. Also you have to take in consideration that GM at the time was looking for user freindly vehicals, and they needed an automatic transmission to do the job.

 

In various sources stated that GM was on a time crunch to complete a front wheel drive automatic tranny to handle 275-280 hp engine. Starting in 1989, they needed to produce a transmission to hold the 280hp up front. Major issues such as torque steer occured, and the project ran out of time. The available auto transmissions at the time were very limited for FWD cars, seeing this car one one of the first posed as an "affordable modern muscle car". Designers alike decided as time ran out, to produce a less powerful machine. 200 for the auto, and 210 for the 5 speed.

 

Another reason for the prototype 3.4 could come from foreing markets. Stated on yet another website source, chevy wanted to produce a car that could hold its own, and contend with major japanese corperations, for example, the 3000GT, and 350zx. The design, how ever failed, and chevrolet produced the 200hp four cam engine.

 

My speculation comes from this, however. Even if Gm could make an efficent engine, that is non-asperated, and produces 280 HP! dont you think they would release it in later years, or for example today? I find it hard to beleive that the successful 3.4 DOHC would die before its high performance brethren would take over? GM came out with the highley effective 4t65e that could most likely handle the awsome power that it produces. i'm also sure a slightly modified GETRAG 286 could bolt right on and make shifting a snap. sure, today GM has the boring superchared 3800 series II engines, but personally, they lack the bark, and the character of the 3.4.

 

Another aspect that leds me to beleive that this is false. THERE ARE NO PROVEN SOURCES. that is a killer. First of all we are all getting this information off the internet. net exactly the best source. how about actual information from the designers themselves? some test data to prove it, and also a dyno sheet. nothing of this exsists, and therefor it is very hard to beleive. i would like to but i just cant.

 

~kyle

[brian89gp]

Getrag 286? Problem was that people wanted an every day driver with an automatic tranny... The 284 would probably handle it anyway.

 

The 4t65e wouldn't live long behind the motor either, its the full torque while at an insanely high rpm during a shift that kills them and the 4t65e is rated at a lower rpm then the 4t60e is.

 

As for re-releasing the motor, they are and they aren't, depends on how you look at it. Technically it was a bitch for maintenance and people outright hated it cause when they did their usual 20k on an oil change the engine refused to take it. Remember we are talking about a daily driver here which ignorant people drive. They later released the northstar which i am sure they used some research from the 3.4 on, and now there is the 60v6 Global engine that is being released soon.

[91GranSport]

If GM can build tanks and missiles, then I'm sure they can build a 280HP V-6!

 

I'm just waiting to see what new V-6 engines will come out for the Gen3 W-Body in '05. I'm sick of seeing all these Goddamn OHV engines. While they're great on trucks, I think it's time to start building more DOHC multi-valve engines for their cars. I also hate seeing GM exploit the Buick L36 and L67. Time to go back to the '60s when divisions built their own engines.

[Brian P]

I also hate seeing GM exploit the Buick L36 and L67. Time to go back to the '60s when divisions built their own engines.

 

I wish!!!!

[Vegeta]

I would take an olds or chevy engine over the buick engine! Id take a ford engine over a buick engine also:)

[Bolt_Crank]

VVT + lightened flywheel probably accounted for the 80HP difference....

 

 

 

through the magic of duct tape and alligator clips, and maybe a little spam, I'll put VVT on my Z

[Aaron]

wow, that sounds reliable, and easy on the wallet, when you wanna come out and do mine

[Bolt_Crank]

 

as soon as I get the $$$ for a road trip, you'll have to supply the materials

[91GranSport]

Brian, remember back when Pontiac built it's own big-block, Buick had their own big-blocks, as well as Chevy and Olds having their own high performance engines? Damn, that's what GM needs. No more of this "cookie-cutter" cars that we have. I understand having one platform for a certain range of vehicles such as our W-Body platform, but they can keep their identity, character and image separate by having distinct powertrains. Damn GM, wake the fuck up!

 

I also hate seeing GM exploit the Buick L36 and L67. Time to go back to the '60s when divisions built their own engines.

 

I wish!!!!

[91GranSport]

Then I guess you'd rather have the 215HP high-maintenance Chevy 3.4L Twin Cam V-6 or the 140HP gutless 3.8L Ford V-6 over the bulletproof 3800 Series II? If GM is exploiting the L36 engine on all platforms then obviously it's a damn good motor.

 

If you're talking about back in the '60s when divisions had their own motors, well, that's a totally different debate.

 

I would take an olds or chevy engine over the buick engine! Id take a ford engine over a buick engine also:)