Building my 3.4

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:36 pm

my point in posting that graph was to show how even a semi stock fiero intake system makes more power then his did on his stock intake. Which goes to show you that he had a tuning issue. SO you can't claim 50 hp gain. Its prob more like 15 through the whole rpm range.

The curve looks pretty linear at every rpm point on the graph. So I am going to assume its about 15 hp or there abouts throughout the entire rpm range.

Not a bad gain. But I find it funny how someone can claim huge gains when in fact you didnt' have your car running properly from teh beginning.

Its still a worthwile mod I think.

The Dark Side of Will · Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:41 pm

As I said before, since you don't know anything about the cam in the engine with the modded Fiero intake, you really can't make any extrapolations about comparison of the intakes. Too many variables.

For instance... the peak power with the modded intake was 125ish, while the peak power with the Trueleo intake was 142ish... but the 125 figure came at 5000 RPM, while the 142 number came at 4500 RPM. Obviously there's a big difference in how these engines are cammed. The same torque that made 142 at 4500 will make 157 HP at 5000, which is a 32 HP advantage over the ported Fiero intake. Taken that way, I think the Trueleo intake has a very large advantage over the Fiero intake, even ported and heavily worked.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:41 pm

I agree completely. When I said more power I was meaing to say at 5k rpm. I was saying that the Mosh's stock intake vs Pauls intake that pauls intake still makes 50ish hp more at 5k rpm then moshs stock intake. Sorry if I sounded like I was talking about the truleo. But yes the area under hte curve is much greater for the truleo and yes that is the most important thing.

That was my point. Its proving that there was something wrong with the tuning

I will email Paul and get more specs on his engine so we can see the differences in the engines if any. hopefully this will get a better comparison.

The Dark Side of Will · Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:25 pm

I would definitely like to hear more. I'd like get a better hold on what the Trueleo intake may be capable of. I fully intend to build an engine with it on top someday and I'd like to push it to its max.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:45 pm

why? I say just use the al heads and indi Tb setup.

The Dark Side of Will · Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:03 pm

I need an engine to build AFTER I build one with the ITB intake...

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:14 pm

Pauls setup:

an ARI 3.4, ported manifolds, Darrell Morse TB, Crane 2030 cam, WCF headers, roller 1:6 rockers, 255lph fuel pump and 17lb Accell injectors.

Through an auto tranny.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:18 am

his dyno graph displays exactly how my 3.4 felt/sounded - at about 5500rpm it audibly changes sound and power plumeted

this was a portmatched 3.4 with 1.7:1 rockers, and slightly shaved heads (they were slightly warped when removed)

loudias · Post by **loudias** » Sun May 29, 2005 11:40 am

The H272 is not a turbo-compatible cam. Too much valve overlap. Turbo cams are not supposed to have much overlap - less than stock actually. Otherwise the air you are forcing in goes right out the exhaust valve that hasn't closed completely yet.

I am still unimpressed with the Trueleo intake. My motor made 149 hp at 5500 rpm when I removed the intake tube from the throttle body. With the tube on and air filter it made 149.8 @ ~4500rpm. This is with the water separater drilled open... I think it was even quicker on the street after I removed the water separator/air silencer completely but I have no dyno of that.

I think a DM Throttle body with a ported and shortened intake is good enough and at 1/3 the cost. Spend the money on a bigger exhaust.

I ran even smoother when I put in the 305 v8 map sensor.

The Dark Side of Will · Sun May 29, 2005 1:03 pm

loudias wrote:The H272 is not a turbo-compatible cam. Too much vlave overlap. Turbo cams are not supposed to have much overlap - less than stock actually. Otherwise the air you are forcing in goes right out the exhaust valve that hasn't closed completely yet.

The problem is actually exhaust reversion. Backpressure is higher than boost, so with excessive overlap you'll end up with exhaust in the intake runner.

I am still unimpressed with the Trueleo intake. My motor made 149 hp at 5500 rpm when I removed the intake tube from the throttle body. With the tube on and air filter it made 149.8 @ ~4500rpm. This is with the water separater drilled open... I think it was even quicker on the street after I removed the water separator/air silencer completely but I have no dyno of that.

I think a DM Throttle body with a ported and shortened intake is good enough and at 1/3 the cost. Spend the money on a bigger exhaust.

How similar have the engines on which it's been tested been to your built engines?

loudias · Post by **loudias** » Sun May 29, 2005 1:42 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote: How similar have the engines on which it's been tested been to your built engines?

I think I've posted details about my engine...it used the H260 cam, ported heads ported intake, DM tb. hollow cat, sprints, IRM dual exhaust. No magic mystery parts... 1.52 Magnum rockers...K&N

popping off my EGR valve got me almost 10rwhp over the base 138. I put it back on and advanced the timing over stock to the point before pinging and got 149.8 and called it a day. And that was with an a/f ratio of 12.8:1 so some tuning could have gotten me more. I was using the stock 88 chip.

All I know is the Trueleo won't give you a sudden 30hp just by bolting it on. And my stock ported intake made about peak 147 hp @5500 just by removing the intake air tube. What can you read into that?

1fst2m6 shortened his intake and added a cold air tube and bump his compression and made 154rwhp. I forget his exhaust... I don't think his intake was ported just shortened. Don't need to port on an auto 2,8 anyway...but couldn't have hurt...

I met a guy the day after the 20th anniv show in pontiac and he claimed 175 horse 3,4 and I asked him what his secret was and he said the CRX intake tube... He had a yellow motor I think. Anyone remember him... yellow86 was engraved on his plenum. I have a couple of pics of the motor in the car where you can see the CRX intake tube if anyone wants them emailed.

In the end (and I've stated this many times on Pennock's) I feel that my money will be better spent on a 2.5" exhaust system. That's the hold up on 3,4 power.

Dough19 · Post by **Dough19** » Sun May 29, 2005 7:54 pm

Maybe I have already seen this, but what is a shortened stock intake? What part is shortened? Thanks, Mark

loudias · Post by **loudias** » Sun May 29, 2005 9:10 pm

to quote Travis:

take your parts to a machine shop they can cut .4" off the top piece, .3" off the top of the middle and about .4" off the bottom of the middle it'll clear the valve covers and work much better for a nitrous fed car and keeping intake air temps down as well for normal driving

so you don't touch the lower intake manifold at all except to port it

in another post he said .4" top, .5" middle-top and .3" middle bottom

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sun May 29, 2005 9:54 pm

Me and Travis used to talk on AIM.

It was a joint effort between me and him on the shortening of the intake runners.

I had the idea based off of honda intakes having short runners and more top end. So I thought hey what about shortening the intake runners on the fiero if possible. While chatting it up I went out and guestimated how much.

I then either sent him an extra intake setup or drove down there(in the area for some reason dont' really remember which) and dropped off an intake setup for him to play with and experiment on. He actually did all the work and had the final numbers and all. He said he got like 8 more hp or so but had a huge hiccup in the powerband where there was a loss of power. We were unsure of what the prob was but we were guessing something along the lines of airflow reversion caused by harmonics or something in the manifold.

Everyone gives Travis credit since he is the one that actually did the work and dynoed it and rightfully so, but noone really knows where the idea for that came from. Just thought I would fill you in on that little tidbit of info. Of course all of this was like 6 years ago. :thumbleft:

Dough19 · Post by **Dough19** » Mon May 30, 2005 6:54 pm

Hmmm......that sounds interesting. You wouldn't by chance happen to have a picture of the finished intake, would ya? It seems like it would take quite a bit of work to get all of that to fit well together. Thanks, Mark

loudias · Post by **loudias** » Mon May 30, 2005 7:44 pm

There was a picture at one time on P-ennock's but I couldn't find it in the archives. There is a pic of his "strange" intake tube...

The Dark Side of Will · Tue May 31, 2005 12:24 am

It certainly was a strange intake tube...

loudias · Post by **loudias** » Tue May 31, 2005 3:05 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote:It certainly was a strange intake tube...

LOL, can't deny results, right?

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:39 pm

WTF are you guys talking about?

Tube?

loudias · Post by **loudias** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:52 pm

Shaun41178(2) wrote:WTF are you guys talking about?

Tube?

http://www.fiero.com/forum/Archives/Arch ... 23206.html