Cams for 3.4
Moderators: The Dark Side of Will, Series8217
Uh...negatory on the pie, I'm afraid - the engine is mounted too close to a firewall to fit a distributor (remember, this is in a 1957 MG).Oversteer wrote:Then purchase the 272 and revert back to a distributor. Easy as pie.
I don't want to go notching anything I don't have to, like the firewall (we've already been doing surgery on the front frame crossmember - that is one BIG mother front pulley) - I'd rather pay a few extra bucks and get a cam that works, or have mine ground.
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:05 pm
Why would you swap a heavy iron GM motorthat doesn't make much power?
I mean, once you're swapping engines, you might as well put in a good motor.
I mean, once you're swapping engines, you might as well put in a good motor.
willie wrote:
Uh...negatory on the pie, I'm afraid - the engine is mounted too close to a firewall to fit a distributor (remember, this is in a 1957 MG).
You cant say that without giving your opinion as to what a "good motor" is....the correct term is ENGINE!!!!! lol! sorry pet peeveallWorkNoPlay wrote:Why would you swap a heavy iron GM motorthat doesn't make much power?
I mean, once you're swapping engines, you might as well put in a good motor.
willie wrote:
Uh...negatory on the pie, I'm afraid - the engine is mounted too close to a firewall to fit a distributor (remember, this is in a 1957 MG).
Resident Import Elitist
-------------------------
1991 Skyline GTR
(OO\ SKYLINE /OO)
-------------------------
1991 Skyline GTR
(OO\ SKYLINE /OO)
OK, but then that gets me into a hybrid set-up using an earlier ECM like the Fiero unit, and I'd have to figure out what impact that has on the DIS....argh...my brain hurts!!donk_316 wrote:Keep the DIS but DITCH the SFI! SFI for what? Slightly better gas mileage assuming your cruise under 3000rpm? Not worth the hassle.
Get the cam of your dreams and run DIS then program your heart out.
Because I LIKE the GM V6 and because it fits fairly well. I agree that if I wanted something a bit more technically satisfying I'd be measuring it up for a Honda S2000 driveline.allWorkNoPlay wrote:Why would you swap a heavy iron GM motorthat doesn't make much power?
I mean, once you're swapping engines, you might as well put in a good motor.
My buddy is doing a Nissan 240ZX swap into a 61 Triumph......
Besides, I could always turbo the GM engine as I did in the Fiero, but I really don't NEED all that power in a sub-2000 lb. car, do I?
- Shaun41178(2)
- Posts: 8738
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:12 pm
- Location: Ben Phelps is an alleged scammer
I am guessing you are tryignto use a OBDwhat 1.5 or 2?
I say get a OBD 1 like a 7730 and plug it in Might have to repin but it will run it flawlessly and then just have to do some minor tweaking to get it perfect
Screw SFI. Its a joke and does nothing for power. Who cares if you get an extra 2 mpg pn the freeway. And besides that, if you do 70+ on the freeway you are prob above 3k rpm anyways or darn near close to it.
Can you reprogram the computer you have now to not have the SFI code so it doesnt' look for that cam signal?
Talk to sinister fiero on here. He reburns chips and might be able to help you.
I say get a OBD 1 like a 7730 and plug it in Might have to repin but it will run it flawlessly and then just have to do some minor tweaking to get it perfect
Screw SFI. Its a joke and does nothing for power. Who cares if you get an extra 2 mpg pn the freeway. And besides that, if you do 70+ on the freeway you are prob above 3k rpm anyways or darn near close to it.
Can you reprogram the computer you have now to not have the SFI code so it doesnt' look for that cam signal?
Talk to sinister fiero on here. He reburns chips and might be able to help you.
The 93/4 Camaro uses OBD1.
I understand that there are people around that can flash program the PCM.
As this runs SFI, why not let it continue to do so? Assuming I can get a cam, of course.
If the cam proves to be a problem, I'll look into your suggestion - keep the OBD1 box but reprogram to fire the injectors as batch rather than sequential - thus allowing the use of a regular cam.
I understand that there are people around that can flash program the PCM.
As this runs SFI, why not let it continue to do so? Assuming I can get a cam, of course.
If the cam proves to be a problem, I'll look into your suggestion - keep the OBD1 box but reprogram to fire the injectors as batch rather than sequential - thus allowing the use of a regular cam.
- Shaun41178(2)
- Posts: 8738
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:12 pm
- Location: Ben Phelps is an alleged scammer
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15751
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15751
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
Actually, it ought to revert to batch fire on its own if you just don't supply it with a cam sensor signal. However, it will also throw a code. This code may do things like disable long term fuel trim learning... or it may not... look it up. If it doesn't do anything but tell the driver there's a problem with the cam sensor, just have it disabled.willie wrote:The 93/4 Camaro uses OBD1.
I understand that there are people around that can flash program the PCM.
As this runs SFI, why not let it continue to do so? Assuming I can get a cam, of course.
If the cam proves to be a problem, I'll look into your suggestion - keep the OBD1 box but reprogram to fire the injectors as batch rather than sequential - thus allowing the use of a regular cam.
Alright, another direction I could go - has anyone had experience with Simple Digital Systems here in Canada?
After market management system to replace OEM - converts to batch fired injection, does away with little problems like defeating VATS anti-theft, programmable without chip replacement.
Anyone tried this?
After market management system to replace OEM - converts to batch fired injection, does away with little problems like defeating VATS anti-theft, programmable without chip replacement.
Anyone tried this?
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15751
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:10 pm
- Location: Down Souf
This is probably too little, too late, but the part number for the Camaro cam is 10166324.
It specs out identical to the Fiero cam. .394/.410 intake/exhaust valve lift.
If you use 1.6 rockers, you'll get .420/.437.
The only difference between the two is that stupid tab for the cam sensor.
The cam for the 3.4 crate motor is 12363220, or 12364059 (complete kit.)
It's the Crane H-260-2, with a GM part number.
Specs are .427/.454 or .455/.484 with 1.6s.
The 272 is .454/.480 or .484/.512 with 1.6s.
---------------------------
From the Department of Redundancy Department.
It specs out identical to the Fiero cam. .394/.410 intake/exhaust valve lift.
If you use 1.6 rockers, you'll get .420/.437.
The only difference between the two is that stupid tab for the cam sensor.
The cam for the 3.4 crate motor is 12363220, or 12364059 (complete kit.)
It's the Crane H-260-2, with a GM part number.
Specs are .427/.454 or .455/.484 with 1.6s.
The 272 is .454/.480 or .484/.512 with 1.6s.
---------------------------
From the Department of Redundancy Department.
BRDS
OK, finally made a decision. Rverted to batch fire but retained DIS, so can use any cam.
Decided to use the Crane 272, but with 1.52 rockers (are the 3.4 rockers 1.6 stock, unlike earlier 3.1 and 2.8, which are 1.52?)
Reason being that I can easily get springs that avoid coil bind at a .480 lift, but getting them for over .500" is a bit more challenging.
Went with Comp Cams rockers, springs etc. which I like.
Will start rebuilding engine once we get the engine mounts built.
Another questions. The Camaro flywheel is....generously dimensioned, especially compared to the flat Fiero unit.. How much weight have any of you removed? I like something like 18 - 20 lbs. on the street.
And I don't suppose you Fiero types know what lightweight ministarter (like the minivans use) works on the Camaro mount (right side, unlike the left side mount of the Fiero and other transverse engined cars).
Decided to use the Crane 272, but with 1.52 rockers (are the 3.4 rockers 1.6 stock, unlike earlier 3.1 and 2.8, which are 1.52?)
Reason being that I can easily get springs that avoid coil bind at a .480 lift, but getting them for over .500" is a bit more challenging.
Went with Comp Cams rockers, springs etc. which I like.
Will start rebuilding engine once we get the engine mounts built.
Another questions. The Camaro flywheel is....generously dimensioned, especially compared to the flat Fiero unit.. How much weight have any of you removed? I like something like 18 - 20 lbs. on the street.
And I don't suppose you Fiero types know what lightweight ministarter (like the minivans use) works on the Camaro mount (right side, unlike the left side mount of the Fiero and other transverse engined cars).
- Series8217
- 1988 Fiero Track Car
- Posts: 6078
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:47 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
willie wrote:And I don't suppose you Fiero types know what lightweight ministarter (like the minivans use) works on the Camaro mount (right side, unlike the left side mount of the Fiero and other transverse engined cars).
I dont think there was a 3100/3400 used in a RWD setup.. the Camaros used 3800s after the 3.4 pushrod.donk_316 wrote:Any 3100/3400 is the "mini starter" that works on all other 60 v6 engines.