93CutlassSupreme Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 greater displacement sometimes provides a torque increase over 4 valve heads ex. look at a 4.6 32 v Cobra, and a 5.7 16 v SS. both make 320 hp, but the Camaro makes around 20 more lbs of torque if i remember right, and i'm sure the curves are much flatter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95DOHC Posted June 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 hey aaron where can i get a turbo for the 3.4 dohc because if i''m reading your post right your running with 12psi and tim g is running with 6 psi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I don't think aarons car is turboed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95DOHC Posted June 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 i wasn't suure if it was turboed i thought it was because of one of his posts it says something about 12 psi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 i wasn't suure if it was turboed i thought it was because of one of his posts it says something about 12 psi He was referring to a 97+ GTP running 12psi(3800 supercharged V6). Tim G.'s Lumi however is turbocharged(3.4 DOHC), it was a custom job though..there aren't any kits out for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95DOHC Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 do you know how i can talk to him about the turbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 do you know how i can talk to him about the turbo Find his screenname on the board and send him a PM(private message) I guess..you could also ask if he used AIM and then actually "chat" with him. Brian89GP on the board(I think that's Brian's sn) also has a turbo 3.4 DOHC in his Grand Prix. http://www.brian89gp.com/engine/turbo.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 A 4-valve 3800 would be better than the 3.4L. But with only 2 valves, there are limits. I have a complete swap/set of SBC 4 valve heads, and I can't wait to get them on. There was no replacement for displacement. But when my 3.4L pulls multiple car lengths on a L67(pulley, 12psi, shift kit, CAI), maybe there is.... TimG's MCZ34, turbo, on 6psi, will not hook up the tires once 4,000rpm shines in, IN SECOND GEAR. In first, no prayer of traction. And I'm sure third hops all the way through. There are limits with 4 valves also. Obviously you can flow much more air with 4 valves, but they also have to be smaller than if it were only 2 valves. The reason you're car pulled "multiple carlengths" on a L67 is because it was modded improperly. 12psi is way too much without an intercooler or water injection or something like that on those cars. 10psi is about as high as you can go without getting knock retard, and sometimes not even that high...and I would bet there was a lot of tuning that needed to be done there also. And maybe someone with a turbo 3.4 can smoke the tires in 2nd gear, but depending on numerous things isn't hard to do. And I would hope with horsepower in the 300+ mark that someone could smoke the tires in 2nd. My STE will almost break the tires loose in 2nd...it chirps them on the 1-2 shift and thats with a completely stock tranny, no shift kit or anything. Maybe his tires aren't that great, maybe his gears are really short, and honestly spinning the tires doesn't mean the car is fast. I can break the tires loose in the '98 Z24 Cavalier we have in my AutoTech class in 2nd gear...it doesn't take much, 5k clutch dump and the stock size tires and it'll smoke them, with like 150ft.lbs. or something like that. From a 45mph roll my dads GTP will smoke the tires with his 245/50/16 Eagle F1 GS-D3 Tires, it will chirp the tires from the 1-2 shift (48mph) and spin them a little at the beginning of 2nd...and depending on the road it will chirp the tires from 2-3 (88mph). But if I put my tires on his car it would smoke those at probably 60mph. The tires that were on my car when I got it (215/60/16 GoodYear Eagle GTII) were very easy to break loose...the car would smoke them from a 20mph roll with the stock chip. I put some 225/60/16 GoodYear Eagle RS-A's on it and it could barely break them loose at 10mph. Put a chip in it and it breaks them loose at about 25mph. That just tells you that a very small difference in tires can make a huge difference in traction. I know of someone that put a turbocharger & intercooler (not sure of what turbocharger, and the intercooler was custom made) on a '97 GP GT (3800 Series II N/A). With only supporting mods (larger injectors, different fuel tables, and exhaust to make the turbo bolt on) he put out 417whp with no tuning, stock timing, 92 octane, etc.... He wasn't running much boost IIRC either, like 8psi or something. The car has the stock bottom end, stock cam, stock heads, stock valvetrain, stock exhaust behind the turbo, you name it, its pretty much stock. Not to mention it makes INSANE torque compared to a 3.4L DOHC making the same horsepower. The tranny was slipping HORRIBLY after the first week. He said it takes about 2-3 full seconds for the tranny to engage each gear its so bad. A bigger cam, some better heads, a better flowing exhaust, some tuning and some other things and its easily 500whp...which is over 600 crank hp. Do that with a 3.4 and you're liable to send the crank out the oil pan. With some good engineering you can probably make a 24 valve 3.4 put out more power than the 3.8 with similar modifications, however, like I said before, put those heads on the 3.8 and the 3.4 is all done. However, with what some of the GN guys are doing, I am still doubting that you can get a 3.4 to make that much power reliably...the block just isn't nearly strong enough. I just can't see how an engine that is ~12% smaller can make the same power & torque with just 4 valve heads. I'll believe it when I see it, but I've see 500hp L67's, and I've seen 240ish hp 3.4's like yours, so the power isn't even close (from what I've seen at least). Show me something making at least 80% of what the most powerful L67's are making and maybe I'll start believing, but I just can't see it happening. Shit, I haven't even seen any 3.4's making the same power as my worn out Turbo 3.1. In the end, no matter how you argue it, THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. If both engines have the same setup and one is larger than the other its gonna make more power and/or torque than the other...and thats a fact. Have you ever seen a 720hp 3.4L...because you can buy a GMPP 572 Crate Engine that makes 720hp out of the crate with 2 valves per cylinder. Why? Gobs of displacement. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 dbtk2??? Common? Just hit reply and try to argue.... Some people have jobs and things to do other than sit on a forum all day waiting for people to reply. I have other things to do, I'm not just some loser like you obviously are that sits on a forum all day arguing about how a smaller displacement engine is better because Aaron owns it, and lies about making headers for the 3.4 when you only had the front set made. I mean, you don't even know how to spell "come on." But Aaron is god because his 3.4 runs high 14's and only blew up once in the process! And IIRC this was a topic about a guy wanting to know about the different engines available to swap in his car. At this point it time it is SIGNIFICANTLY easier and cheaper to make an L67 500hp than a LQ1. Depending on the power levels this guy is looking for a LQ1 may be better or maybe the L67. It would be cheaper to mod the LQ1 to a certain extent then it would be to swap in an L67, but like I said, at this point in time an L67 can be modded to high power levels much easier/cheaper than an LQ1 for the simple reason of it having an aftermarket 1000X larger. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmer Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 the 3.8 to 3.4 is only about a 12% difference. About a 305 to a 350. But you are forgetting one very important fact. The LQ1 is NATURALLY balanced. V6s are naturally balanced at 60* and V8s at 90*. I'm sure that this has a remarkable difference. I actually have to agree with Aaron on this one. I believe the main difference in balanced and non is the stress on internals at higher RPMs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 There are limits with 4 valves also. Obviously you can flow much more air with 4 valves, but they also have to be smaller than if it were only 2 valves. obviously they have to be smaller??? what r u saying??? they still flow more. first problem u have is u are comparing apples to oranges. more acceptable would be a non supercharged 3800. but we still don't have the aftermarket they do. in stock form the 3.4 makes 15 more hp then a 3800. with much smaller lift on the cams. and less displacement. if we had the aftermarket it would be different. u do the smae things to a 3800 non supercharged that we can do to a 3.4 and lets see which one is faster. u can't deny the 3.4 will be. enough said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loominaz34 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 To the group of guys that are fight in here about engine design: first, stop jacking threads. Second: a non-blown 3.8 makes 200 HP, as does the 3.4 liter. 400 CC and no power difference is a red flag to me. Sure, the 3.8 makes 15 ft/ lb more torque but it also probably weighs enough to cancel that advantage out as well. All info from chevy.com OK Im done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Some of you guys act like you CAN'T have more then 2 valves per cylinder in a pushrod motor. Anyone read about what they're going to be doing to the Vette motor in a few years(3 valves per cylinder and variable cam phasing...retaining the overhead valve/pushrod engine)??? 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Some of you guys act like you CAN'T have more then 2 valves per cylinder in a pushrod motor. Anyone read about what they're going to be doing to the Vette motor in a few years(3 valves per cylinder and variable cam phasing...retaining the overhead valve/pushrod engine)??? 8) Thats what I'm saying. You put 4 valve heads on the 3.8 and the 3.4 is all done. The bigger engine is gonna win, period. All you have to do is come up with a rocker arm that will open both valves, or some plate that goes across the valves so when the rocker arm pushes down it will open both valves...it really isn't rocket science. Like I have been saying, you put 4 valves on the 3.8 and the 3.4 doesn't have a chance. And my other point still remains, the 3.4 block is weak. You're gonna have lots of problems with the bottom end when you're making the kind of power that the 3.8's are making...the block really isn't strong enough. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Some of you guys act like you CAN'T have more then 2 valves per cylinder in a pushrod motor. Anyone read about what they're going to be doing to the Vette motor in a few years(3 valves per cylinder and variable cam phasing...retaining the overhead valve/pushrod engine)??? 8) Thats what I'm saying. You put 4 valve heads on the 3.8 and the 3.4 is all done. The bigger engine is gonna win, period. All you have to do is come up with a rocker arm that will open both valves, or some plate that goes across the valves so when the rocker arm pushes down it will open both valves...it really isn't rocket science. Like I have been saying, you put 4 valves on the 3.8 and the 3.4 doesn't have a chance. And my other point still remains, the 3.4 block is weak. You're gonna have lots of problems with the bottom end when you're making the kind of power that the 3.8's are making...the block really isn't strong enough. Shawn equally so u put boost on a 3.4 and the 3.8 is toast. its all speculation. and if u want to get technical about horsepower since u are comparing the series 2 3800 at 200 ponies the later dohc's had 215. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99RegalGS Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 and if u want to get technical about horsepower since u are comparing the series 2 3800 at 200 ponies the later dohc's had 215. The Horsepower and tq difference varied from year to year. Here's a breakdown of hp for W's. 1991and 1995- L27 170hp, 220tq(225tq for 93-95); LQ1 210/200hp, 215tq. Difference 40/30hp for the LQ1 and 5lbs(or 10lbs 93-95) tq for the L27. 1996 - L36 205hp, 230tq; LQ1 215hp, 215tq. Difference 10hp for the LQ1 and 15bs tq for the L36. 1997 - L36 200hp, 225tq; LQ1 215 hp, 215tq. Difference 15hp for the LQ1 and 10lbs tq for the L36. The 3800 Beats the LQ1 every year for tq, but the LQ1 beats the 3800 every year for hp. And also the NA 3800 is not a preformance engine. It is designed for relibility and economy. My Regal will easily beat my Cutlass in fuel economy. For example; on my trip to Nebraska to get my Cutlass my Regal averaged 33mpg, and on the way back my Cutlass averaged 26.5mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 equally so u put boost on a 3.4 and the 3.8 is toast. its all speculation. and if u want to get technical about horsepower since u are comparing the series 2 3800 at 200 ponies the later dohc's had 215. When I say equally I mean with the same intake, so if one is forced induction the other would be as well and they would both have the same forced induction. Also, depending on the application the L36 (series II 3.8) made different amounts of power. In the Bonnevilles it made 205hp & 230tq..I believe the exhaust & intake were different or something...but it made 200hp & 225tq. in W-bodies all years IIRC. Personally if I were gonna make an engine to go fast and I could chose between the LQ1 or L36/L67 I would chose the 3.8. It is a much stronger engine, it is a bigger engine, and it requires virtually no maintenance. No timing belt every 30k. You change oil every 5k and plugs ever 100k and you're set to go. Not only that, but the 3.4 would have no advantage that I can see. 4 valve heads really wouldn't be that hard to engineer. Like I said, put some sort of plate across the two valves or design a rocker arm that will open two valves per rocker arm and you will have the 4 valves. Just to give you an idea of the little maintenance L67's require, my mom has a '00 SSEi with 110k on it. The only maintenance that has ever been done is it got new plugs & wires at about 70k and the oil is changed whenever the computer in the car says to change it (usually every 5-7k). The only problem we have ever had was the intake manifold gasket looked like it may have been leaking antifreeze so we replaced it at about 70k (the same time we put the plugs on it)...it was like $10 and was a ~3 hour job. Not only has it required virtually no maintenance, buts it not stock. Its had a 3.4 pulley since it was virtually brand new (had a few thousand on it IIRC), it has higher ratio rocker arms (and has since about 60k), gutted airbox & K&N filter, among some other things. It doesn't smoke, leak, or anything like that. Runs good as new and even with the 4000+lb car and driver it still gets ~30mpg on the freeway. It has averaged 23mpg overall the whole time my mom has owned it. I can't think of many, if any 3.4 owners that can say all they have ever done to their engine is change the oil and put new plugs in it after 110k. I have a feeling anyone who tried that would have a couple pistons that smaked a valve or two. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 maintence isn't so bad on the 3.4. everyone cries cause they have to change there belt. and its not 30k its 60k. i understand that u are partial to your engine and people will always be biased, so i will end this with i'm glad i now own a ls1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 maintence isn't so bad on the 3.4. everyone cries cause they have to change there belt. and its not 30k its 60k. i understand that u are partial to your engine and people will always be biased, so i will end this with i'm glad i now own a ls1 How are you liking that LS1, I really want one, but being 16 I obviously can't afford one. I could've bought a '98 Z28 6 speed for $6k (which is quite obviously a steal) but missed out on that deal...now I'm pissed. If I'm partial to the 3800 (which I don't think I am) it isn't because its my engine, because my car has a 3.1 in it...so its not like I'm partial to my own engine. Anyways, the point I was trying to make is that there is significantly more maintenance needed on a 3.4 than a 3.8...and being required to do more maintance doesn't really make me want that engine. Why would you want an engine that doesn't perform any better but costs twice as much to maintain...I just don't get it. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 maintence isn't so bad on the 3.4. everyone cries cause they have to change there belt. and its not 30k its 60k. i understand that u are partial to your engine and people will always be biased, so i will end this with i'm glad i now own a ls1 what did you buy?? I miss my LS1 Camaro 6spd tremendously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 98 ls1 a4 camaro, z28 of course. silver with t-tops. i payed 6600. and that is a steal . don't worry i'm only 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 98 ls1 a4 camaro, z28 of course. silver with t-tops. i payed 6600. and that is a steal . don't worry i'm only 18 Where did you get it at??? There was a '98 Silver Z28 6 speed w/T-tops for sale around here and the guy was asking $6600 for it IIRC...although my grandfather is very good friends with the guy so I could've easily gotten it for $6k, or maybe even less (my grandfather was thinking 5500ish). Insurance would've been insane, and I still would've had to have another car for the winter ('cause I'm not stupid enough to drive it in the winter) so then I would've had to pay for insurance on two cars, and it just would've been too much for me since I'm only 16 and have a lot of other things to worry about instead of spending every dime I have on cars. And I really don't want to have to get rid of the TSTE (it would've been my winter beater), but the maintenance on that car is so much that I can barely afford to drive that without having another car. However, if I find another one that cheap...you can bet your ass that I will own it! Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4spdz34 Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 attica michigan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89GPSE Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 What does IIRC stand for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 What does IIRC stand for? If I remember/recall(take your pic ) correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.