I hate cars

Hell, my motor is virtually the same old pushrod 3.8L that started life in the 60s and refined up to the 80s. There's nothing high tech in the longblock but it made 602hp, 620lbs of torque, idles pretty smooth, fairly quiet, and gets 26mpg on the freeway. All with only one cam, 12 valves, and a 6,000rpm rev limit.

harddrivin1le

You're making 602 HP from a 3.8 liter Buick V6? Turbo aside, that seems on the high side.

What kind of fuel and boost levels are you running?

Several years ago an article in "Automotive Industry" (a trade journal) mentioned that Honda and Toyota (among others) had procured and disassembled several 3.8 (later, normally aspirated versions) to attempt to decipher how they managed to perform like that do. They couldn't understand how iron heads (with old valve angles, etc.), relatively low compression (ran fine on 87 octane), 1 cam and cast/stamped internals could produce the torque power it did and still get 30 MPG (some models were EPA rated that highly) - with a 4 speed automatic, no less.

ARX-01b

iTrader: (1)

I've owned both an s2000 and my currently ride an 04 TL 6mt A-spec. I'd take my TL on a big track over the s2k anyday of the week. Once the track gets tighter and slower I'd opt for for the S. The new s2000CR will own the rest in it class next year. Watch out M3's and Camaros. The S will be back on top!

I hate cars

Fuel was C-16 and boost was ~27psi with 28 degrees of timing. Daily driver trim is 100LL from the airport plus methanol injection with 23psi and 24 degrees timing. It's a conservative tune but on the street and drag radials it doesn't hook below 55mph anyway. If you were talking about fuel system, it has dual Walbro 340s in the tank still using the stock fuel lines and an ATR regulator if I remember right.

It's about airflow. You figure at 14.7psi you're more or less doubling the airflow into the motor. I'm running almost 3 atmospheres so the engine thinks it's a normally aspirated 12.6L lol.

I got the car into the upper 11s with very very few mods. Spent maybe $800 not counting tires. Back in '96 there wasn't much around that would touch it. Today it's a different story thanks to the LSx cars, 03-04 Cobras, etc.
There are a few points to make about mine so as to not mislead anyone.

Iron heads will make more power than aluminum with all else being equal such as flow. Unfortunately the stock GN heads only flow ~155 on the intakes and worse on the exhaust yet still have gone in the 10s (although rarely) on an unopened factory longblock stock from the throttlebody down. I'm running ported GN1 aluminum heads.

I bumped the compression to a full 8.5:1 lol.

I'm using a 2- bolt 4.1L block which is identical to the 3.8 except for a bigger bore. Still using the stock 3.8L cast crank and rods in it. It's .035" over which brings it to a 4" bore so it accepts any Chevy blower piston if you can find one for the Buick rod length. That cut piston cost by $200 from JE. Displacement comes out to ~256" or 4.2L.

With the extra displacement I was able to run a 212-212 duration cam with a smooth idle. I know this sounds small in the LS1 world but it's right about where a 3.8L starts loping. I wanted to be able to pass the car off as "stock with exhaust" if I needed to.


With the exception of replacing the transmission every year it's been extremely reliable for the power level. I've run into several Kenne-Bell Cobras, Viper GTSs, and C5 Z06s without much trouble. I would love to try my luck with one of the new Z06s but thanks to the bodyshop my car has been down for a while and will probably be down until sometime next year unless I win the lottery in the meantime.

harddrivin1le

That's a lot of power and performance.


I would argue that your car isn't truly "streetable," though. I realize that you can drive it on the street, but I think you know what I mean (.e.g. fuel requirements and availability.)

Vipers, Z06 'Vettes, etc are normally aspirated, emissions certified cars that run perfectly on 91 octane unleaded fuel.

And remember, an LS7, Viper, etc. can be heavily boosted and tuned to run on racing fuels, too.

Iron heads make more power (theoretically, anyway) than aluminum heads when all other variables are exactly equal. But aluminum can tolerate somewhat higher cylinder pressures prior to the onset of detonation. That even things up fully from a power perspective. BUT, aluminum is lighter. That combination results in better performance for normally aspirated engines.

They're running aluminum heads exclusively in top fuel drag racing (and virtually every other high level of motor racing). Those guys will do anything for 1/100th of a second, so I have to think they'd be running iron heads if that were the faster way to go:

http://www4.army.mil/racing/dragster.html

ENGINE

Engine: 500-cubic-inch TFX aluminum hemi (6000+ horsepower)
Fuel: Nitro-methane racing fuel (10 gallons per run)
Shafts: Sonny Bryant billet steel crankshaft (replaced every 8 runs)
Belts: Gates Belts & Hose
Gaskets: Fel-Pro
Alan Johnson aluminum hemi heads
Pistons: Venolia
Ignition: MSD dual ignition
Clutch: Automan pneumatic clutch

PERFORMANCE

Best quarter-mile elapsed time: 4.441 seconds
Best finish-line speed: 333.08 mph
5 G-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land)
6 negative G-forces upon deployment of twin parachutes at 300 mph


That suggests that aluminum is still the way to go for heads once all things are considered - other than cost, of course.

I hate cars

Aluminum is used for weight savings and repairability. Identical iron heads will make more power because more heat is reflected into the combustion chamber. Top Fuel heads have no water passages so I'm sure they're not soaking up too much heat. Coatings help a lot too.

I guess your idea of streetable is different than mine. I used the GN to commute to work for 6 months running it 210 miles round trip on 87 octane. Running more octane is an option for me and I choose to take it. I can run it on 87 with no problem if I choose to and when I take it out of town, it's usually on the cheap stuff. I would like to see the LS7 motor run fine with no pinging on 87 octane. It will be pulling timing like crazy.

Your argument that the LS7, Vipers, etc can be boosted too holds no water. That's a ricer cop out. My car came factory with a turbo and they came factory with 427+ cubes. Do you think I ever considered asking those guys to pull two (or four in the case of the Viper) plug wires to even the odds against my V6?

Don't forget the fact that a turbo kit for one of those cars is over 5K which is more than I have invested in my entire motor.

If we're making excuses, I could bring displacement, weight, and aerodynamics up but it's run what you brung and I'm not worried.

harddrivin1le

That's true for any given cylinder pressure.

But aluminum heads can tolerate somewhat higher cylinder pressures for any given fuel octane - assuming everything else is identical.

Example:

A given iron head SBC might tolerate a 9.5:1 CR with iron heads and 91 octane fuel without detonation.

That same engine could run ~ 10.25:1 on the same fuel with the aluminum version of those same heads with the same 91 octane fuel. The engine would have to be designed to optimize the aluminum head (e.g. thinner heads gaskests, decked blowed and/or different pistons).

Output would be essentially identical in both cases.

But the aluminum heads are lighter, so total vehicle performance will be superior with the aluminum heads.

http://www.highperformancepontiac.co...lts/index.html

"However, the aluminum head can take more compression than an iron head before detonation because heat dissipates faster from the chamber through the aluminum."

harddrivin1le

http://www.classicmustang.com/tech_tips.htm

"Aluminum vs. Cast Iron Heads - Many people don't pay attention to the compression ratio when going from cast iron to aluminum heads. Fact is that if everything was equal the cast iron head will make more power than an aluminum head. This is because the cast iron head doesn't absorb heat from the combustion process as fast at the aluminum head. Therefore more heat is available to push the piston down. The way to get back the lost horsepower is to up the compression on the aluminum head. Typically you can run about a half to full point more compression with an aluminum head over the cast iron."

S PAW 1

GM has proven that larger displacement, pushrod/2 valve engines can make more power, be more fuel efficient and cost less to build than smaller displacement, multi-valve engines. Many have simply chosen to ignore that reality.[/QUOTE]


Apparently so. Especially the buying public.
And we have gotten way off topic.

harddrivin1le

Apparently so. Especially the buying public.
And we have gotten way off topic. [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry that the truth bothers you so much.

Acura builds a fine car, but you're dreaming if you think they can touch the Gen IV GM smallblocks in terms of the HP X MPG multiple.

They can't.

I hate cars

I'm sorry that the truth bothers you so much.

Acura builds a fine car, but you're dreaming if you think they can touch the Gen IV GM smallblocks in terms of the HP X MPG multiple.

They can't.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of your statements and I don't need a lesson on the benefits of aluminum heads. I was offering the iron head argument in response to your statement that some people couldn't figure out how the GN made the power it does. I currently run a set of GN1 ALUMINUM heads on my car.

You seem to be on the LSx bandwagon though. Don't forget the fastest Trans am ever made is still the 1989 turbo trans am powered by the 3.8L GN motor. More power and about the same fuel economy as the LS1 cars. I can dig up some old videos that I made of a bone stock (factory never changed air filter, factory boost settings, factory exhaust) TTA against an M6 LS1 WS6 with exhaust.

harddrivin1le

The fastest Trans Am ever made is an LS1 - in bone stock form.

Example:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...6.html?page=11

LS1 F-bodies typically put 300 HP (and more) TO THE WHEELS - in bone stock form.

No bone stock 3.8 liter GM engine could touch that.

harddrivin1le

http://thepontiactransampage.com/gal...ans_Am_Turbo_2

CAR AND DRIVER's '89 turbo TA trapped @ 101 MPH in the quarter...

That car came out 9 years before the LS1 F-bodies. Any "stock" 1989 turbo TA that out-ran a bone stock LS1 example past 60 MPH or so wasn't stock - regardless of what the source/owner claims.

220 RWHP for the '89 turbo TA in bone stock form:

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ure/index.html

That's roughly 80 HP down on a bone stock LS1 TA...

harddrivin1le

Bone stock LS1 Camaro (identical to an LS1 TA) dyno...

http://www.ericohlsen.com/camarodyno

302 RWHP.

And I've personally witnessed several, virtually new (at the time) Pontiac TAs produce figures that were slighlty higher than that.

I hate cars

I've personally witnessed my friend's stock LS1 make 321hp at the wheels on a dynojet. Even the dyno operator was surprised and ran it a couple more times to verify it wasn't a fluke.

Another friend's WS6 dyno'd 400ish to the wheels with only a cam, headers, and exhaust. No head work. Very impressive.


I don't care about ratings or any of that internet BS. Who cares about dyno numbers? I'm a little more concerned with how fast it gets down the track. In the real world a TTA is a bottom 13 second car with some going in the 12s in good conditions. The LS1 cars might have a mph or two on it but you forget all the extra torque the 3.8 has over the LS1.

I've raced the bone stock TTA in question. I'm also the one that removed the stock paper air filter and replaced it with a K&N. I removed the stock chip, and I installed the exhaust. I also saw the stock boost level of 15psi. The car was in the same condition as it rolled off the floor in 1989 including the tires when it raced the WS6.

You can link to all the articles you want but I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times so this is not a hypothetical situation or a valid debate to me. I personally ran 13.20s in the car mentioned at the same track on the same night where all the stock and slightly modded LSx cars including a couple Vettes were stuck in the 14s. Maybe it was bad air which effects NA cars more or maybe bad track prep. I even beat a Viper that night that was going 13.30s. Maybe Bakersfield people can't drive lol.


I admit that they're extremely close. Take them both to a track at sea level on a hot day the LS1 might be victorious. Take it up a few feet on a cold day and most the time, the TTA is going to win. I'm not saying it isn't an extremely close race.

Now if we talk mod for mod, the LS1 is going to be seriously hurting.

screaminz28

iTrader: (1)

LOL...definitely agree with the ricer cop out statement. It definitely is run what you brung. One thing I never understand is how people claim that a technology must be better simply because a race series uses it. NASCAR still uses carbs, guess those are better all around as well? Flat tappet cams too...and those little 355s are turning 9k and making over 700hp. Guess flat tappets are better. There are rules in racing that are there for reasons other than "it's the best way." NASCAR uses live axles, so that's better for a performance handling aspect? I don't understand that rationale.

Some people don't consider an Integra type-r to be a high performance vehicle, but I do. Hell, I've seen them get power-on oversteer in a corner too, so RWD isn't the only way to go.

harddrivin1le

TTAs didn't run low 13s in bone stock form.

Those engines are VERY easy to add power to, as you well know. "Stock" quickly becomes a subjective statement.

There are "stock" muscle cars running twelves (e.g. 1970 350 Cutlass) in "The Pure Stock Drags"that couldn't get out of the high fourteens when they were new.

I've driven stock Buick turbos. I almost bought one in '86. They had a lot of balls for what they were and still do - once they're modded.

But they weren't the equal of an LS1.

The biggest difference is above 90 MPH or so. The TTA would be history by the time the LS1 was seeing 130 MPH on its speedo.

That sounds like a long time, but it's only ~ 23 seconds from the moment the light turns green.

harddrivin1le

I'm one of those people.

The kid next door who had one wasn't - until he drove my 1LE. The expression on his face was priceless and his words were just as good: "It feels like it's being sucked to the ground."

I hate cars

Of course the two videos I was looking for are taken down at the owner's request for whatever reason. The only video I found of that night was the owner's (female) first time trying to launch the car and she didn't build boost off the line so the Z28 got the jump. The TTA narrowed it down to it's front bumper at the Z28's door. The other two videos she launches on him hard and wins by a couple cars each time. Notice the exhaust on the LS1.

http://bsr.njsr.org/2001/081401/11.wmv

Bone stock TTA vs A4 WS6 with exhaust.... no contest.

http://bsr.njsr.org/2001/063001/7.wmv

GN with exhaust and K&N. Stock boost level.

http://bsr.njsr.org/2001/063001/10.wmv

Another, even with a bad reaction time.

http://bsr.njsr.org/2001/061601/35.wmv

My GN when it was nearly stock. Only mods were: Open exhaust (free) higher boost (free) chip ($50) K&N ($45). Got a slightly bigger than stock used turbo when mine went out at 160K miles for $300. So my car with roughly $400 into it on street tires vs a 5.0 Mustang with heads/cam/small A-trim blower/slicks.

http://bsr.njsr.org/2001/052601/6.wmv

Again, the TTA in question was factory bone stock, not "stock". Notice how hard it runs the auto LS1s down even on a bad launch. If the TTA is not a low 13 second car, the LS1s must be in 14 second land.

harddrivin1le

Are you serious?

Videos (that were shot many years after the car was built) say NOTHING about a car's state of tune.


Here is a KNOWN STOCK example:

http://www.gtasourcepage.com/89MT20thTA.html

As they rolled off the showroom floor, '89 TTAs produced ~ 220 RHWP and trapped at 96 - 101 MPH.

trancemission

harddrivin, I think you've made your point. This is the second time that Ive had to read post after post of yours in a thread where you beat a dead horse.

This thread is off track and has been off track. Ive asked in a previous thread that you take your conversation to PM. Im asking you again.

The OP said that he was impressed. Thats all he said!!!