engine swap
TStang429
fieros. and some talk about putting in 3.4's i was wondering how hard are these
swaps what needs to be changed. i am looking to purchase a 88 gt that needs a
motor and am looking for power and want to keepp the power to weight balance as
close to possible . plus any places that you know that would sell performance
parts for this car would be appreciated. thanks for any help you can give.
gw
"TStang429" <tsta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020530125342...@mb-ca.aol.com...
Pyrthian
and dont have to make any major changes to the car - its just a bigger
bore & stroke, same block.
http://www.engine-parts.com/GMV6/gm28stroker.html
they got some good stuff there
unless you get the 3800 supercharged, the 3.8 is alot
of $$$ for not to much more HP
"TStang429" <tsta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020530125342...@mb-ca.aol.com...
gw
or 30 HP. Boring and stroking an existing 2.8 block to 3.4 is risky -
leaves very thin cylinder walls. The 3400 DOHC is a different story, but not
at all a drop-in. Agree with the N/A 3800. The V8 is only about 50lbs more
than the stock 2.8, and you can build to 500+ HP relatively cheaply.
All depends on how deep your pockets are.
"Pyrthian" <pyrt...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:HztJ8.25$y45....@news.uswest.net...
Pyrthian
I like the look of the original fiero intake. But nothing
can replace the RAWR of a mighty 350! I did the the
3.1 stroker on mine, was a nice & simple rebuild.
no hacking the wiring harness or modifying mounts
didnt want to have to get a new block especially for
the 3.4 - and didnt have the $$$ for anything much more
hoping to be able to turbo charge next summer
"gw" <gar...@nac.net> wrote in message
news:ad5q5n$dln$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
TStang429
Mladen Gavrilovic
V8Archie's they're listed at $550)
Mladen
Gary W.
muffler shop can fabricate anything.
"TStang429" <tsta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020530210528...@mb-ms.aol.com...
Clay
Clay
"Mladen Gavrilovic" <mlad...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CF6D9FE...@sympatico.ca...
Don Hager
there is all kinds of information.
http://www.fiero.nl/cgi-bin/fiero/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=tru
e
--
Don Hager
WWW.Fiero.us
DHa...@cfl.rr.com
"TStang429" <tsta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020530125342...@mb-ca.aol.com...
John Wipff
>I personally like the 3.4, cuz you can keep the original look of the motor
>and dont have to make any major changes to the car - its just a bigger
>bore & stroke, same block.
>
Yep, there is only ONE problem with this engine. The lower intake manifold
gasket leaks after a few thousand mile and leaks anti-freeze into the oil. The
problem is that you USUALLY don't know it's happening. I have 2 Pontiac vans
and BOTH had this problem. It's a design flaw. CANNOT be fixed permanently.
There is a NATIONAL back-order on the gaskest for this problem. I think I'd
use almost ANY OTHER engine!
JazzMan
Uh, the 2.8 L44/3.1/3.4 all use the same design intake gasket because
they all use
the same cylinder head. The gasket is still available
from Felpro because I just bought some. I agree the design is crummy,
but
if the mating surfaces are properly cleaned and prepped, and a good
gasket
is used with the intake properly torqued, there isn't a particular
propensity
for these to fail in service.
JazzMan
--
***************************************
In memory of Pincushion
http://www.captured.com/underground/memories/patrick_magee.html
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************
John Wipff
HOT thread. But in this case, I must! And of course, I'm only going by MY
experience. But MY experience has been lengthy!
I have talked with 3 mechanics about this problem and they all said that it IS
a design defect in THIS engine (3.4).
I have 2 other vans with the 3.1 engine (0ne with over 400,000 miles!) and
have had NO lower intake manifold gasket problem with them. ONLY the 3.4.
I have had MANY Fieros with the 2.8 engine--ZERO manifold gasket problems.
Only the 3.4!
Two mechanics said that they could earn a living fixing ONLY this problem. One
guy showed me 3 gaskets he had replaced (Including mine!). They had all
ruptured in about the same place. The service writer at the Pontiac dealership
here in San Antonio told me that the problem is STILL in the 2002 models!
If you STILL think this is not a problem with ONLY this engine, there are over
300 signatures on an internet site to have GM recall this engine and pay for
the problems it has caused. I personally have spent over $1400 for both vans
and some people have paid over $1000 for a one-time fix.
And one of the problems is that you NEVER know it is happening until it
happens. There is NO warning! You check the oil one day and it's fine, the
next time, it's full of antifreeze!
And one mechanic told me that it can happen anytime after 30,000 miles! One of
my vans had 150k, one had fewer than 100,000. And the mechanics all said that
even tho it's fixed, it can happen again ANY TIME!
So my experiece (and 3 mechanics!) tells me that THIS IS A DESIGN DEFECT on
this engine!
John Wipff
(Fier...@aol.com)
JazzMan
>
> I always hate to disagree with anyone on a NG because it invariably causes a
> HOT thread. But in this case, I must! And of course, I'm only going by MY
> experience. But MY experience has been lengthy!
>
I agree and accept that your experience has been lengthy. However, in
order
for your experience to have been statistically significant, you would
have
had to own a significant percentage of the millions of vehicles that GM
has produced with this engine. You've had two, the mechanic showed you
evidence of one more, and a website with 300 signatures all add up to
303 instances that are currently documented in this thread. And that's
assuming all 300 on the website are legitimate and don't include
hucksters
trying to finagle a new engine for their worn out car.
> I have talked with 3 mechanics about this problem and they all said that it IS
> a design defect in THIS engine (3.4).
>
It may be a design defect in their opinion, but unless they're engineers
they're not qualified to make observations that are anything other than
anecdotal.
>
> So my experiece (and 3 mechanics!) tells me that THIS IS A DESIGN DEFECT on
> this engine!
>
Again, your experience and that of the three mechanics is not
statistically
significant. And as far as it being a design defect that's limited only
to the 3.4, all I can say is that the cylinder heads are identical to
the
2.8, and the 3.1 for that matter. The intake seals against the cylinder
heads, which are the same. The only contact the intake has with the
block
are the lifter galley end seals. That's it. Since the heads are the sole
determining factor for intake coolant passage sealing, it doesn't make
sense that the intake seal is any more or less likely to fail on a 3.4
as opposed to a 2.8 or 3.1. What I'd like to see would be a detailed
engineering analysis on the failures. Now that would be meaningful.
Respectfully,
John Wipff
>engineering analysis on the failures. Now that would be meaningful.
Hey, le'ts get GM to pay for it! ;-)
John Wipff
Fier...@aol.com
JazzMan
They probably already did, and concluded that there isn't
a problem specific to the 3.4s in the 60 deg V6 family of
engines. Most likely, the few failures resulted from other
problems such as being run low on coolant, neglect on
coolant changes to prevent rust, overheating, etc. I'm sure
that some failures are a result of particular defects with
a particular engine, but even if there was a 5% failure
rate of what must have been several million engines built,
you'd be talking about hundreds of thousands of failed
engines. That would make front page news. The fact is, that
engine is fairly reliable if properly assembled and
maintained, and has a reputation of being one of the more
reliable engines that GM has put out in recent history.
John Wipff
>problems such as being run low on coolant, neglect on
>coolant changes to prevent rust, overheating, etc.
I'm sorry but, speaking from my experience, this was not the case. I check my
coolant and oil level and condition regularly because I drive many, mostly
hiway, miles each year. I was driving one '96 Trans Sport van when the problem
occurred and it just flat started leaking coolant into the oil. The problem
forced me to rent another van to continue to my destination. Because of the
problem and the info from the mechanic that repaired it, when the other van
showed even a small amount of leakage of coolant into the oil, I immediately
took it in to the Pontiac dealer here in San Antonio. It was then that the
service writer told me that the problem (and it IS problem, according to him)
was still in the 2002 models of the Pontiac Trans Sport (and by extrapolation,
the Olds and the Chevy versions and EVERY OTHER GM car with that engine!) tho
most were repaired under warranteee because they occurred during the warrantee
period. He is the one who told me that the gasket was on national back order
but they just happened to have one set left to fix my van.
So if over 300 people, that I know of, have complained about this problem, how
many more:
1) do not have a computer to complain
2) don't know about the petition site
3) traded in their vehicle and forgot about it
4) have plenty of money and just don't care,
5) etc, etc.?
While 300 people with this problem may be small as a number, don't they
possibly represent many THOUSANDS of people with this same problem?
> The fact is, that engine is fairly reliable if
> properly assembled
So who assembled these engines in the 1st place?
>and maintained, and has a reputation of
>being one of the more reliable engines
>that GM has put out in recent history.
You state that this FAMILY of engines is very reliable. I can certainly agree,
since, as I stated, I have 2 other vans with the 3.1 (400,000 miles on one) and
THEY never gave me any engine trouble. Same with the Fieros. The 2.8 has NEVER
given me ANY engine problems. ONLY THE 3.4!
And it is not only MY opinion--2 mechanics, a GM service writer and 300
disgruntled GM owners say the same thing. Obviously, I have not interviewed
others because that isn't my job.
But getting back to the original question of installing this engine in a Fiero,
my feeling has not changed. I'd put almost ANY other engine in MY Fiero EXCEPT
the 3.4.
John Wipff
Fier...@aol.com
JazzMan
>
<snip>
> period. He is the one who told me that the gasket was on national back order
> but they just happened to have one set left to fix my van.
>
Just happened to have one set left? I can think of three places off the
top of my head that have hundreds left.
> So if over 300 people, that I know of, have complained about this problem, how
> many more:
>
> 1) do not have a computer to complain
> 2) don't know about the petition site
> 3) traded in their vehicle and forgot about it
> 4) have plenty of money and just don't care,
> 5) etc, etc.?
>
I think that if the failure rate is as high as you imply,
that would mean that there are hundreds of thousands of
people with this particular failure. Most apparently don't
own a computer, no longer own the vehicle (but somebody does,
that vehicle didn't just disappear into thin air), are so
wealthy that they don't mind a $1k+ repair, etc. Hmmm....
> While 300 people with this problem may be small as a number, don't they
> possibly represent many THOUSANDS of people with this same problem?
>
Let's just suppose that 10,000 people have vehicles with the problem.
Supposing that only 1 million engines were built (small by GM
standards),
then the failure rate is 1%. Now that's low by some standards, say by
Neon headgaskets for example, but it's still fairly high by modern
standards. If 10k failures occurred, then only 3% of the failures were
reported to the website you mentioned. That's a pretty low number too.
Why? Either 97% of the people have so much money that they don't care,
or the problem just doesn't exist to the levels as postulated.
>
> You state that this FAMILY of engines is very reliable. I can certainly agree,
> since, as I stated, I have 2 other vans with the 3.1 (400,000 miles on one) and
> THEY never gave me any engine trouble. Same with the Fieros. The 2.8 has NEVER
> given me ANY engine problems. ONLY THE 3.4!
>
The 3.4 uses the exact same mating detail as the other 60 deg V6
engines. Why
would this design work so well on of millions of engines, but suddenly
not work on the 3.4? What exactly was the failure mode? Was corrosion a
problem? Did the gasket delaminate? Was the torque on the intake bolts
incorrect? Did the contracter supply defective gaskets to GM? Just what
is
exactly wrong with the design that makes this gasket fail on the 3.4 but
not the 2.8/3.1 engines?
> And it is not only MY opinion--2 mechanics, a GM service writer and 300
> disgruntled GM owners say the same thing. Obviously, I have not interviewed
> others because that isn't my job.
>
The US population is around 260,000,000. So far, only 304 have come out
and
stated that they have a problem. That's 1.17e-6, now that's a really
small
number. I bet more people win the lottery than have problems with their
60deg V6 intake gaskets.
I'm not doubting that you had a bad experience, and I'm sorry that you
feel the way that you do, but the fact is the evidence doesn't bear out
the claims of this being a widespread problem. There have been millions
of 2.8/3.1/3.4 engines produced, all with the exact same gasket design,
but they just haven't been failing. Even if the rate was an astronomical
5%, there would be tens of thousands of cars in shops with wrecked
engines. There would be waiting lines of cars in dealer parking lots to
get
new gaskets and engines. I was at my local dealership last month, and
there certainly wasn't a line of people with engine problems out in
front of the service bays.
Show me some actual evidence of large numbers having problems, and
300 isn't a statistically significant number, or show me what exactly
is the failure mode, and then I'll believe, but not until then.
shiden_kai
"JazzMan" wrote
> Just happened to have one set left? I can think of three places off the
> top of my head that have hundreds left.
Jazz, you are talking apples and oranges here....your engine is completely
different from the engine the poster is talking about. Your intake gasket
has nothing in common with the 2nd and 3rd gen v-6's. His particular
van and engine is indeed on national back order. The 3.4 engine in
particular as it's intake gasket is slightly different then the 3.1 engine.
We are actually using the 3100 gasket on the 3400 engine, but it
involves removing a locating pin on the gasket in order to allow
it to mate to the cylinder head. I'm not a big fan of this type of repair,
but it appears the General is desperate. Otherwise, we would literally
have 100's of vehicles down waiting until they get this gasket problem
in hand. Of course, all that will happen is that the 3100 gasket will
quickly become rare. This also affects other repairs that we are
performing that require an intake gasket set, whether it failed or
not. Such as the ongoing piston replacement in these engines.
Though it's mostly the 3100 v-6 that has the cold piston knock
problem.
> I think that if the failure rate is as high as you imply,
> that would mean that there are hundreds of thousands of
> people with this particular failure. Most apparently don't
> own a computer, no longer own the vehicle (but somebody does,
> that vehicle didn't just disappear into thin air), are so
> wealthy that they don't mind a $1k+ repair, etc. Hmmm....
Just as a little info on the number of gaskets sold in Canada,
three major parts depots showed a total of over 40,000 of these
gaskets sold in the last year. And we are a small market.
> The 3.4 uses the exact same mating detail as the other 60 deg V6
> engines. Why
> would this design work so well on of millions of engines, but suddenly
> not work on the 3.4? What exactly was the failure mode? Was corrosion a
> problem? Did the gasket delaminate? Was the torque on the intake bolts
> incorrect? Did the contracter supply defective gaskets to GM? Just what
> is
> exactly wrong with the design that makes this gasket fail on the 3.4 but
> not the 2.8/3.1 engines?
See my remarks above.....later design and all that. The 3100 and 3400
v-6 engines use the exact same *design* of intake gasket, but they differ
slightly in the location of one locating pin on the gaskets. The problem is
that they are a plastic/rubber composite gasket that fails miserably. We
do so many of them in the dealership, I'm surprised it's not a product
recall.
> Show me some actual evidence of large numbers having problems, and
> 300 isn't a statistically significant number, or show me what exactly
> is the failure mode, and then I'll believe, but not until then.
My apologies for jumping in on the other side....but it really is a
problem.
Ian
John Wipff
saying. You have your feelings, I have mine. You feel that the 2.8/3.1/3.4
family is a good one. However, as I stated, I have 2 vans with the 3.1 and
have had maybe, 10 Fieros with the 2.8. ZERO ENGINE PROBLEMS! But 300 other
people and myself have had THE SAME problem with the 3.4. I had it with BOTH
my 3.4 vans. Doesn't that tell you something? It tell me to NEVER buy another
GM with the 3.4 engine. Period.
In my opinion, that these engines are in the same "family" does not mitigate
the fact that there is a problem with THEM and not with the others in the
"family".
Besides being a Fieronut, I am a Studebaker collector. In 1951, Studebaker
brought out a very advanced (for its day) 232.6 cu.in. V-8 engine. In 1963,
when Andy Granitelli tried to bore it to 305 cu. in., it leaked water thru the
cylinder walls. Now THAT 305 was still the same "family" (232/259/289) but
they never produced the 305 because of that problem. I think you will agree
that just because a human FAMILY was PREVIOUSLY good, that does not necessarily
mean that the DESCENDANTS are good.
The website (I wish I could find the URL, I'd send it to you) for the recall of
this engine is NOT for the recall of the 3.1 or the 2.8...ONLY THE 3.4.
Doesn't that say something about the 3.4? It DOES to me.
We can argue all day long about the merits of this FAMILY but the fact remains
that the 3.4 has a problem and two mechanics and even the service writer at
Pontiac agree with that statement. Lines or not, wrecked engines or not, IT IS
A PROBLEM of this engine! GM won't admit it, which is why I and others must
resort to the petition to recall IT, not the 3.1 nor the 2.8. But you'll
recall, GM never wanted to admit there was a problem with the 350 diesel
engine, either.....and it came from another "GOOD FAMILY"! And the Vega...it
was a Chevrolet, after all, another GOOD family.
So let's just say that we each have an opinion, mine based on experience, yours
based on theory. You must agee, however that, IN THEORY, the bumble bee can't
fly. But not knowing this, the bumble bee FLIES anyway. In theory, the 3.4
should be a good engine. It came from a "good family". Unfortunatly, being an
inanimate object, it doesn't know this, so after a few thousand miles, the
lower intake manifold gasket leaks. And can cost a lot to repair.
In my opinion, this is a DESIGN defect. It should never have been released to
the public. Since it WAS released, it should be either repaired or replace for
free, as GM did with the 350 diesel engines.
At least, THAT'S my story and I'm STICKIN' to it! ;-)
John
Fier...@aol.com
Mr. Potatohead
the abuse being named FieroNut on a Stude list. A good friend and one of
my favorite people, if not a totally agreeable person, is JETman and he
won't give me the time of day on Fieros. He believes to this day that
you can't do a brake job on them without removing the engine. :-)
John Wipff wrote:
> Besides being a Fieronut, I am a Studebaker collector. In 1951, Studebaker
> brought out a very advanced (for its day) 232.6 cu.in. V-8 engine. In 1963,
> when Andy Granitelli tried to bore it to 305 cu. in., it leaked water thru the
> cylinder walls. Now THAT 305 was still the same "family" (232/259/289) but
> they never produced the 305 because of that problem. I think you will agree
> that just because a human FAMILY was PREVIOUSLY good, that does not
> necessarily mean that the DESCENDANTS are good.
>
Pyrthian
there is a very big difference. I wouldn't guess there
would be a problem in the iron head 3.4 intake gasket
that doesnt show up in the iron head 2.8/3.1, being
theres no actual differance except bore & stroke
anyways - never having had one I cant say for sure
"Mr. Potatohead" <boz...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3D0E0520...@cox.net...
John Wipff
>the abuse being named FieroNut on a Stude list.
You may have notice that on the Stude NG, it now says "FORMERLY Fieronut"! Tho
I still have that name here. If you can't beat 'em -- join 'em!
And I will be in South Bend all next week at the Stude Nationals.
John Wipff
Fier...@aol.com
Johnny...@AOL.com
(Formerly Fieronut)
John Wipff
>there is a very big difference.
Duh! I'd guess iron but never took it apart...always paid someone else to do
it.
But I can tell you that the intake set-up is CERTAINLY different from the Fiero
or 3.1.
Maybe the heads are the same but my point (AND MY ONLY POINT!) is, based on my
experience AND THAT OF HUNDREDS OF others, iron or aluminum, there certainly IS
a problem with the lower intake mainfold gasket on the 3.4.
And this is my LAST word on the subject. Can we NOW go back to Fieros?
John
Fier...@aol.com
John
Fier...@aol.com
Johnny...@AOL.com
(Formerly Fieronut)
JazzMan
>
> OK, I Really don't want to discuss this further. I DO understand what you are
> saying. You have your feelings, I have mine. You feel that the 2.8/3.1/3.4
<snip>
The only 3.4 that can be used in a Fiero swap that I know
of is out of the early 90's F-body. These engines seem to
be very reliable, as opposed to the later minivan applications
that you seem to have had such bad luck with. Regardless,
many people have done this engine swap with great success,
and I will probably do it as well next year, with great
confidence.
Respectfully,
JazzMan
>
> are we talking aluminum head or iron head 3.4's?
> there is a very big difference. I wouldn't guess there
> would be a problem in the iron head 3.4 intake gasket
> that doesnt show up in the iron head 2.8/3.1, being
> theres no actual differance except bore & stroke
> anyways - never having had one I cant say for sure
>
Probably aluminum head 3.4s. The intake on a Fiero
absolutely cannot be made to work on the aluminum
head motor, at all, ever. The intake design on
the iron head 2.8 and 3.4 are identical. Here's
Ed Parks site on this swap:
http://www.thefierofactory.com/34.htm
Pyrthian
news:20020617152314...@mb-mt.aol.com...
> >are we talking aluminum head or iron head 3.4's?
> >there is a very big difference.
>
> Duh! I'd guess iron but never took it apart...always paid someone else to
do
> it.
>
> But I can tell you that the intake set-up is CERTAINLY different from the
Fiero
> or 3.1.
that would be aluminum heads then - way different stuff
> Maybe the heads are the same but my point (AND MY ONLY POINT!) is, based
on my
> experience AND THAT OF HUNDREDS OF others, iron or aluminum, there
certainly IS
> a problem with the lower intake mainfold gasket on the 3.4.
that gasket is totally different than the gasket used on a 3.4 iron head
that we would use in a Fiero