coreylively

Ive been doing some searching on here for performance parts for the 3.1 v6 in my 91 rs and it seems there are performance head available but i can find from who. ive found all the stuff on cams,etc. nothing on intakes either....any help in this department would be greatly appreciated. thanks guys

Guest

All the performance heads are either ported stock 2.8 / 3.1 / 3.4 iron heads, or they're some version of the FWD aluminum heads.
On your 3.1, you can't use the good 3500 heads. You need a '93-'95 3.4 to go that route.
So, if you do ported iron heads, you can either try Truleo for a custom-fabricated intake manifold, or port your original, or have your original Extrude-Honed.
I just got done porting my heads and manifolds, but I'm also doing the 3.4 swap.

coreylively

I read somewhere on here about hybrid heads as well as aluminum heads. Are these just stock heads as well or something different. Im also under the impressiion that all the 2.8-3.4 heads are the same. I am mainly just researching the option of beefing up the v6 thay i have to meet my requiirements or if it will take the v8 swap to do it

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The "hybrid" or "aluminum" heads are the same. They are stock heads, from the gen2 and gen3 60 degree v6. The better heads (and top end) are from the (large port) gen3 variation.

coreylively

Are any or all of these heads a bolt on affair for my engine and intake manifold? Also has anyone delt with the company ari? The offer various parts for these engines among them cylinder heads

Guest

What are your requirements? 175 HP? Ported iron might get you there. 225 HP? Do the 3500 heads and intake on a 3400 bottom end. 300 HP? turbocharge your 3.1, with ported heads. 400 HP? 3.4 with 3500 heads and turbocharging. Probably more effort and cost than a V8 swap, but probalby do-able. Over 450 HP? just do the V8 swap. Probably an LSx, or at least a 383.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The reviews for ARI have been less than flattering.

Thier "stroker kits" are just simply stock GM cranks from the 3.1 and 3.4, to increase the 2.8 to a 3.1 within stock boring limits, of the 3.8 and 3.1L blocks.

The gen3 heads require the use of a gen3 intake, which also means swapping to DIS. This is part of the reason why the 3.4 block is suggested from the start, since it has block provisions for the dis crank sensor.

External triggers can be made though, I made one for my 2.8L block that was bored .030 over and stroked for a 3.2L 660.

The best way to get power out of the 660 is to go with the gen3 top end.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

I know of a few guys that have hit over 400 HP with a turbo 660, most commonly with the 3400 though.

coreylively

Isnt the 3.4 the same block just different stroke?

coreylively

For my original requirements, i was gonna do a carbed 350 with vortec heads and around 400 horsepower. However if i could get 250ish with what ive got, the money id save from the swap would be worth it as well as the cool factor of having something different by keeping the original v6 and working with it.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

No, the 3.1 and 3.4 share the same stroke. The 3.4 block is cast different for the larger bore.

250 would be fairly easy. I know of guys hitting 220 to 230 hp N/A with 3400s, with more potential.

If I were to do it, I would use turbo though, to get the nice milage off boost and great power when you need it.

coreylively

I imagine turboing would get pretty pricey though. I read twelvesecondv6's sticky and there was a lot of great information there, im just a little skiddish about doing something like that. Ive worked on several turbo cars before but never built one and definately not from scratch like he did

Guest

Okay, let's look at HP versus MPG:
Your 400 HP Vortec 350 should do 20 mpg. Drop back to a sensible cam, you should end up with 25 MPG and 350 HP. This should be do-able for under $2000. Build it for MPG, 300 HP and 30 MPG should be possible, again in the $2000 range. I'm assuming you'll do ALL the work yourself.
How about the hybrid 3.4? Might get you 230 HP and 30 MPG.
A turbo 3.1 should do 280 HP and 30+ MPG.
A stock LM7 should be over 300 HP, and should also top 30 MPG. But the cost should end up around $3000. However, it offers the most potential of what I just typed. Put a T76 on it, you can realistically hope for over 500 RWHP, and still top 30 MPG. Price: $5500. Nothing else in this thread can offer that.
The V6 offers benefits in insurance costs, and is lighter than an iron-block V8, which helps handling and braking also.

coreylively

I have also heard that the egine being closer to the center of the car helps in handling and acceleration as well. As far as the work, i will do it all but machine work.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The V6 can be built CHEAP.

I know it was a few years ago (close to 9 years ago now), but I built my 3.2L (that includes new pistons, cam, some bearings gaskets, etc and some used parts, like the top end, etc, converting my truck from carb to EFI and turbocharged it for around $1200 USD at the time. With today's economy and some careful planning I'm sure that the same could be done with better results than I had for not much more. I'd say that I could build a higher quality turbo V6 with much better results for less than $2000 USD, knowing what I know now.

Project 3.4 Camaro

There are no aftermarket heads or intake manifolds, just stock ones, and or sometimes ported ones out there. The gen 1 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4 engines all have the same blocks externally, and same iron heads, generally the gen 1 iron heads are referred to by liter designation, while the newer fwd aluminum models are denoted by CC, ie. the 3100, 3400, 3500 etc.
Read my sticky if you want more detailed information on what can be done with the v6 thirdgens performance wise.

coreylively

Do you guys have any tips or advice on going the turbo 3.1 route? Im either gonna do that or a crbed 350. Those are the only options i want to consider. I want to keep things simple and to be honest doing a turbo from scratch is intimidating to me. However if i found enough information to guide me and it were cost effective enough, id do it in a heartbeat.

coreylively

After re reading some of the stickys it seems the only way for me to get aluminum heads on my engine is to use the fwd versions and do all yhe necessary swapping and electronics. Thats more than im wanting to do. I think my best option is to use ported stock heads and get a new cam and do all the necessary bolt ons as well. Then if it isnt enough, look into a turbo. There are a lot of cams for these motors out there....is there a popular one amongst you guys here?

evilemokid94

iTrader: (6)

my 2.8 heads are aluminum, but they are also off a 93 s10 aswell

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The hybrid swap is NOT that difficult, the electronics are easy, and could even use your existing electronics, though it would be easier to swap the ECM, but still retain the harness, just repin it.

A turbo set-up from scratch is not that difficult. Don't look at the project as a whole, look at each piece or sub assembly to make up the entire project.

I think too many people see projects like this as a whole and therefore overwhelming, when if you break it down into sub assemblies and sub-sub assemblies, it makes the overall project easier to digest.

Guest

Sorry, none of the '93 S-10 2.8 engines had aluminum heads. Either you have a hybrid, with FWD heads, or you have iron heads, possibly sprayed with aluminum-colored paint. Get a magnet, then try it on your heads. If the magnet sticks, then they are iron.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Magnet trick doesn't always work, to prove they are iron.

No factory gen1 60 degree V6 ever came with aluminum heads.

There were some gen1 style aluminum heads available through Potter Heads years ago. They are very rare.

Guest

Why not?

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Sometimes iron is mixed with a lot of non-ferrous metals that cause it to be less magnetic.

Project 3.4 Camaro

260 grind cam is popular(several companies make them, check summit, or you can get one from delta cams(where I got mine)), its basically the biggest grind you can get away with, witihout tuning the ECM, but if you boost you want a different cam than you would NA, also a hybrid swap isn't exactly easy, its quite a daunting swap for a newbie, I would say it shouldn't be attempted by someone who hasn't at least rebuilt a top end before, and ofc if a person only has 1 car to drive its even more daunting, retrofitting can take a lot of time.

coreylively

i agree with you project 3.4. I read your sticky and you seem to focus more on duration that lift as far as cam requirements. Is this because the lift in the cams they make for our cars doesnt have ptv clearence issues? Ive had heads off several cars in my time as a mechanic and I also know what a pain making stuff work can be. Im thinking i will stick to a good worked set of stock iron heads, a good cam, a full exhaust, and a good cold air induction system and see where that gets me. Then if I am happy to stay with the 6 but want more power, I'll add turbo. You have any idea what kind of power i should expect from that n/a setup? I would like to think close to 200, but I think that I may have high hopes in that regaurd.

Project 3.4 Camaro

200 N/A will take a lot of work on an iron head, esp if its not a 3.4, I don't really know all that much about cam design, I recommend the 260 grind simply because its both about the largest you can go while still having good streetability, and the largest you can go without tuning the ecm.
Even when I ordered the 260 the guy at delta asked me if I was sure I wanted something that large on a street driven car, it does move powerband a bit higher off idle, whereas originally it was probably low-midrange power,(I'm assuming, I've not actually driven a stock gen 1, but I had a gen 2 and gen 3 6/60, and generally the engines are designed more for low-midrange power in stock form) its now more midrange and upper powerband, if I had to guess a #, it probably starts kicking in strong around 2500 rpm, but hard to say till I rewire my tach to work with a v6.

I don't offhand remember but I believe more duration is desirable in high compression N/As, and more exhaust duration on turbo cams, but I may be wrong cause like I said I'm no expert on cams and its been a while since I've looked at them.

coreylively

I imagine the lsa is a factor as well. On sd mustang v8s you need a 114 lsa as compared to a lot of the 112s out there. This is due to maintaining vaccum which is very crucial on those cars. Would i be right in assuming the same to be true for my sd 3.1? Also with turbo a possibilty in the future, i would want to do just the fmu of 8:1 and 19lb injectors at somewhere around 8 psi of boost. Is that safe and reliable for a daily driver or am i being foolish? I honestly dont know and would like to har from the guys that have done it like dave to make that install as simple and straight forward as possible. I was reading his sticky and as far as routing, it seems that the y pipe gets merged into one and then feeds the turbo, then after the turbo, that pipe goes back to the exhaust. Is that correct? Im sorry for all the questions if im being a bother, but thats what these forums are here for right?

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Port flow makes power, iron heads fail even ported.


If you don't want to change out the top end then boost is probably the way to go. No matter what you'll always be limited by those iron heads so don't expect 300+ HP. It will make the car more fun to drive though.

coreylively

is that to say its a waste of money for ported iron heads with stainless valves and retainers for the money/performance gain ratio?

coreylively

I imagine the lsa is a factor as well. On sd mustang v8s you need a 114 lsa as compared to a lot of the 112s out there. This is due to maintaining vaccum which is very crucial on those cars. Would i be right in assuming the same to be true for my sd 3.1? Also with turbo a possibilty in the future, i would want to do just the fmu of 8:1 and 19lb injectors at somewhere around 8 psi of boost. Is that safe and reliable for a daily driver or am i being foolish? I honestly dont know and would like to har from the guys that have done it like dave to make that install as simple and straight forward as possible. I was reading his sticky and as far as routing, it seems that the y pipe gets merged into one and then feeds the turbo, then after the turbo, that pipe goes back to the exhaust. Is that correct? Im sorry for all the questions if im being a bother, but thats what these forums are here for right?

Guest

That other thread, the guy claims his porting added 38% more flow to those iron 660 heads.
If you could get that, it'd surely be at least equal to stock 3400 aluminum heads. But getting that for a better price than doing the 3400 heads? Not likely.

Project 3.4 Camaro

iron heads ported to the max flow ALMOST as well as stock 3100/3400, it is less however, and obviously porting aluminum heads is going to widen that gap.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

200 HP N/A with iron heads and streetable? Not likely.

I've seen many people claim that the iron heads can be made to work, rah rah rah....

The MOST I've seen N/A with Iron heads was around 220HP, and that engine had a LOT of work done to it, custom intake, massive porting of the heads, custom headers, custom grind cam, etc. He also said it wasn't the most street friendly combination and guzzled fuel.

Now 200 HP N/A with genIII heads, not a problem. Many people are getting that with a stock 3400 top end, most are using the 3400 bottom end as well, a reground cam and a good tune. Similar power results could be had with a genI 3.4 bottom end, 260-2 or 272-2 grind cam and a good tune. The 3.4 bottom end just doesn't have the improved oiling, roller cam, or cross-bolted mains.

FWIW, I used the GMPP equivalent of the Crane 260-2 in my turbo 3.2L, it ran well.

Don't base what the Mustangs guys are doing or NOT doing on anything that you will do with a GM 660. I haven't found too many Mustang guys that really know how to make more power without following someone else's recipe.
LSA is not the only factor in determining what kind of a vacuum signal you will have, though it can have an affect on it.

Pillsbry10

iTrader: (1)

id bet money on it that i have a 200hp NA motor in my car or real close to it

keep in mind my dyno run was on a HORRIBLE clutch slip, i didnt make it above 4000 rpms nor did i have it at full throttle...and put down 174hp and 210tq

coreylively

My issue with doing the aluminum head swap is all the wiring and fitting i will have to do to make it work. I just simply dont want to have to fool with making a throttle body work and wiring up a dis system as well.

Project 3.4 Camaro

I'm about to have to deal with both on iron heads Switching to 3.4 rwd intake, long story...on the plus side I'll have like half the ground work laid out for the hybrid swap when I get there, just going to need huge dish pistons, or a larger cam if I stay N/A.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The wiring is not difficult at all.

If you start with a 3.4 block, there is NO fabrication involved to run the DIS system. There are the same amount of wires between the ECM and DIS ICM as there are for the dizzy ICM. The only additional wires are the crank sensor to ICM harness that needs to be added, by plugging in that harness to the crank position sensor, and to the DIS ICM.

coreylively

It doesnt sound too bad but i want to stick with what i have. If i have to swap engines i will just do a carbed 350. The only two options i want to consider is working with the 3.1 that i have or swapping in the 350.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Why don't you want to look at a 3.4 or a 660 hybrid?

Why are the 3.1 and a carbed 350 the only two options?

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

Just to add to this.. stock iron heads flow around 170 CFM @ .5 lift, with the best porting available you might get to 190 or a little past that.. but once you bolt on the factory intake that's all out the window.. even if it's ported as well. Truleo intakes are a joke which is why all the real high powered iron headded 60v6's from the 80's ran Hilborn's or carbs. Those guys were running huge solid lifter cams that wouldn't idle below 2K RPM, tuned length headers, and in some cases very high compression just to get near 300 HP.


Stock 3400 heads flow 210 CFM @ .5 lift, once you bolt on the 3400's lower intake (assuming it's ported as well) sure that drops down a little but not nearly as much as the gen 1 stuff. That engine regularly makes almost 200 @ the wheels with a few bolt-ons (5 speed trans).


So OP, take it from a few guys who have been around this block more than once. Porting iron heads is like sharpening the points of a boat anchor, sure it looks neat and you can brag about it.... but in the end you still have a boat anchor.


You'll run into the same problems with a SBC, most of the stock iron heads don't flow very well. There are newer GM heads that work better but you are going to have to put some effort into it to get them to work correctly.

project89

iTrader: (1)

i know damn well i can get ore then 30 cfm out of an iron head

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

flowbench tells all...



I was able to get over 200 CFM out of a Gen 2 head at .5 lift but once the LIM with it's tiny runners was bolted up it was back down to around 185, less than 180 with the UIM bolted on.

Guest

Sharpening a boat anchor: funny! I never heard that before, thanks!
Anyway, accepting that stock iron is 170, accepting that stock 3400 is 210, and accepting that other guy did gain 38%, that puts his iron at 235 cfm.
Now, did you bother to get your UIM Extrude-Honed? Because that really does improve flow, and the only alternative is to cut the UIM open, then port it, then weld it back together.
I had no trouble porting my heads or LIM, or the middle IM. All of it is fully ported and polished, except inside the UIM. And I polished as much of that as a 6" mandrel would reach.
The '93-'95 UIM might flow better?

coreylively

Im not against aluminum heads at all. I just dont want to have to do the extra stuff to accomodate for it. The reason I say my only options are building what I have or swapping in a SBC is just because thats all I want to do. I just wanna keep it simple and see what the easiest and simplest route to getting more power that is available to me. Even with a SBC I wouldnt get too crazy, just a necessary prepped block (.030 over, etc) flat top pistons, vortec heads, a .500 lift cam, rpm air gap intake, and a 600-650 carb. Throw some headers on and call it a day. Itd probably be in the 400 hp range and be a blast to drive and rock solid and reliable. i know that I cannot get that power out of a v6 without extreme levels of work. However, if I could get a good amount of power with what I have, some head work, a good cam, and turbo and proper gearing, then I would do that as it would be less money than swapping in the v8 and doing all the stuff to accomodate for that (acessory pulleys/brackets, a new t5, etc). Im trying to gather as much information as I can about what I have and what to expect out of doing the v6, which you guys have provided me with a ton of information and I thank you very much for taking the time to do so. Once I figure out what kind of power I will end up getting from getting a set of worked iron heads and a bigger cam and having the intake ported and a good ignition and all that stuff with around 8 psi boost from an intercooled turbo. I'll weigh the cost to the v8 swap and the performance difference and then decide which way I want to go. I will say that it would be pretty cool to have a 3.1 turbo because noone in my area has one so it would definately be unique. I really dont see why I couldnt get 250 horsepower with a turbo 3.1 if not more and to be honest, that might be enough.

project89

iTrader: (1)

this is what 270hp vs will get u
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KALeK3Rlcys
and actually it will be faster this video was before i swaped turbos and dynoed

coreylively

You know where i could get me a set of headers like that? That wpuld ne a lot better than running a pipe from the y pipe back up to the turbo.

Guest

Why? Just do a rear turbo, then you don't need an FMIC.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

what other guy is this? Forced Firebird?

that 38% must have been the gain of the average of all the intake ports, there is no way iron heads will ever flow 235 CFM. Even if you could get up to that the port velocity would be totally shot and they'd only be good for boost.

A lot of time we average the port flow numbers from .05 up to .5 or .6 to give a clear picture of the real gains. Some times all the gains are below .45 lift and the .5 and .55 numbers don't go up much. It has to do with the port shape, port volume, type of valve etc...


Don't forget, Intake flow is only half the story.. exhaust flow plays a huge part in this as well.

I need to get an iron head and run it on my bench, that way i can compare it to the gen 2 and gen 3 numbers that i've personally measured. Stock gen 2 flow is very similar to the gen 1 but not exactly.

Guest

Who cares? It's not just flow, it's also swirl, and combustion efficiency, and the manifolding.
We all get that most ported iron heads aren't likely to perform like the 3400 hybrid. But if one of the famous engine builders tried it, a built iron 3.4 would beat a stock 3400.
That doesn't mean that Corey shouldn't do ported heads on his 3.1. If he spends a couple hundred dollars, it might be a decent value.
From what I've seen in all 4 of my heads, I'd definitely want some porting to prep for a turbo. I'd be careful to not remove much port wall thickness in the exhaust ports, due to heat issues.
Still, the 3.1 makes 140 HP. Add 14 psi of intercooled, SNOW-Performance-methanol-sprayed boost to that, it should be 280 HP.
And it should still return the highway MPG of a stock 3.1L
Will the 3400 hybrid do 280 HP for less investment? Corey doesn't seem to care.
Can Corey do 280 HP cheaper and easier than doing the 350?
That seems to be the relevant question.
Not if you can do it, or if I can do it, but if Corey can do it.
From what I've read, the pistons are the weakest link.
And it seems to me that however the 3.1 gets to 280 HP, it's gonna need exhaust system work. So that's no longer a cost savings relative to the 350, since it needs similar.