mcrandrz

Ohhhhhhh okay bro. Then get out of the v6 forum?

Im just saying... What are you even doing here.


Posted from Thirdgen.org App for Android

cosmick

Nice, an un-called-for personal attack. I have a V6 third gen, so I have business being in here learning. Let me put it in other words, since it seems I failed to post understandably: If I'm able to find a chip with a turbo tune already loaded, and whomever is selling the chip will specify a flow rating for the injectors, and a source and part number for a new MP turbo, then I'll have everything I want. I can't be the only one wanting this general package, either. Turbo kits make no sense, since you either need a platinum credit card or a literal wheelbarrow of cash, and if you have either then why worry?

mcrandrz

I am sorrry. The way I took your comment was that v8 was the way to go. Look if its easier / more cost effective. Go do it.


Posted from Thirdgen.org App for Android

caffeine

iTrader: (2)

Around here at least LSXs are rare and expensive. Even truck engines cost at least $700, then you need to buy car intake, oil pan, and accessories to fit into a 3rd Gen which would almost definitely be getting shipped from the US, which quickly adds to the cost. The cheapest LS1 engine only I've seen locally was priced at $2500 and the cheapest LS1/4L60 combo I've seen for sale was $4000. T56s are also rare around here and I've never seen one for sale for less than $1500; LSX versions probably average $1800.

I looked into upgrading an LT1 since they're considerably cheaper but the cost adds up quickly when you consider that it seems to have more weak links than stock V6s. Add to that any LT1s available for a decent price have high mileage.

I went V6 because it was a reasonable compromise. Engines readily available for cheap with low mileage, bottom ends that seem last well beyond stock power, cam and valvesprings are the only things really needed to rev high. Not to mention a lot more space in the engine bay.

Not saying LSXs aren't better, but it wasn't the best option for me.

C-rays86

dont give up on it man there was a guy who had a 3.1 on here somewhere and he had around 350 hp he did it on a budget too. i think the 6 bangers need more love because they have potential. me personally i wouldnt buy any v6 car pre 1990 without the intensions of swapping it, thats just cuz im not a 2.8 fan but the 3.1s are descent the 3.4s are cool and the 3.8s are pretty legit i raced a friend in his bone stock 3800 auto with my LB9 5 speed iroc and i got him by 2 cars not that much when you think about it. but anyways do what you like f*** what a hater say

fasteddi

iTrader: (2)

I couldn't agree more.

IMissMy86TA

the 3800s were the slant 6 of the day.
the only way to kill them is to drill thru the block. lol

fasteddi

iTrader: (2)

Keep in mind that the post 85 2.8L/3.1Ls cant take a pounding. Im sure myself, project89 and a few others can attest for the beating they can take before they have any issues when nitrous and boost is tossed to them. I remember a while back reading a thread on there where BL85C intentionally tried to kill a 2.8.... https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/v6/5...vastation.html a little bit of boost and about 200hp of nitrous later...it still ran. Its a pretty cool thread to read. I think they finally did blow it up though in the end.

I run about double the stock HP level on my V6 Camaro and to be honest im not at the least concerned about the stock guts failing. Its a great engine to take to the max if you wish to do so and can keep it from detination.

RubberDucky

iTrader: (4)

I would never in my life say the 60*6 wasn't a reliable motor. My old 2.8 drove for a week with no oil and getting the **** beat out of it, then it ran for a month with a spun bearing like nothing was wrong. Probably the strongest motor I've ever owned.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

I think fort me, it's tied with the Nissan 2.8L in my 240Z. I BEAT the crap out of my Nissan I6, and it takes it all in stride.

Before I swapped out the 2.8 in my '85 Jimmy for the Franken60, I got pissed off when the truck was stuck in snow, and basically just kept it floored until it wouldn't go anymore. The engine overheated and shut off. Went back into the shop for a few minutes, came back out and it fired right up again, drove it for a few more months before doing the actual swap.

Fordvette

well Im sticking with my v6... Its stock well except for a cam right now, but gonna see what I can do in the winter with a ecu swap, and then look at a turbo fab install. And hell if I screw it up, and blow crap up, there is tons of them available LOL

RubberDucky

iTrader: (4)

I miss my Datsun.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

That seems to be a common theme for those that have owned and sold their Datsuns.

I plan to keep mine for a VERY long time.

RubberDucky

iTrader: (4)

Mine never ran, but it was a early 74 260, with a L28 N/A-T swap, stock 4 speed. I sold it to buy my 500SE AMG.

Maverick H1L

iTrader: (8)

Um...

1988 IROC-Z28. Originally LO3 305 toilet bowl injected. According to Tech Data on this site, rated at 170 HP and 255 TQ.

Engine in it currently is a 3.1/3100 hybrid. Estimated 225 HP and 235-240 TQ before cam. And a couple hundred pounds less weight better distributed. All fueled and ready to go except the 7x CKP is apparently DOA...

You will NEVER get the efficiency of a V6 with a TURBOCHARGED LS1. They can't even get it nowadays with a turbo 4 banger. And yes, I've read all sorts of reports on overinflated efficiency claims on the turbo 4s.

And the cost difference is HUGE. You pay $1000+ just for your engine in a lot of cases, I can go and get a replacement 3.1 for $200. And I don't need to modify the crap out of the car and the engine to put the engine in the car. Which means, for about the cost of your engine and possibly trans combo, I have a complete hybrid system putting out V8 power. Enough said.

RubberDucky

iTrader: (4)

I love my V6, but stock for stock the LS1, LM7 is a better motor hands down, there's no doubt about it. My buddy's 2012 GTI gets 28 MPG city beating on it. There is no 60*6 that can say that. These motors are great, but they aren't magical.

Hawkeye1980

iTrader: (3)

Well I had both a 1986 V6 firebird new. It got hit by a dumb kid parked in front of my house years ago. I loved that car and tossed around a V8 swap back then. Although it was fixed it was never the same. In 1989 I bought my Formula 350 new. I love this car even more.

I had it in reverse, I had a "friend" if you will was so envious that I had a new v6 firebird in 1986 he had his rich dad buy him one. I was paying for mine myself. When I bought the new Formula 350,(again myself) this guy went crazy. Kept saying any improvement he made to the car made it seam like a v8. The guy was a nut and drove me CRAZY. He could not deal with my v8 bird.

Don't let anyone bother you with the v6 vs. v8 BS. If you love you car the way it is, so be it. And to those who bother you about it, just laugh at them and walk away. Drives the nuts, lol.

caffeine

iTrader: (2)

High-power turbo 4s suck when it comes to fuel economy. I have several friends who have/have owned cars with turbo 4s and they have all gotten awful fuel economy.

Fallen2603

Most forced-induction motors will get bad fuel economy whenever they're in boost for long periods of time. A lot of turbocharged four-cylinder cars, from the factory, come with pig-right tunes. For example, it's not uncommon for a Solstice GXP to make 28MPG highway from the factory, but, once the tune is leaned out, several owners see highway gas mileage in the high 30's to low 40's. Another good example is the Cobalt SS/SC. They usually come with a factory tune with command AFR of ~10.5:1 and get about 29MPG highway. However, lean that command AFR to 11.8-12.0:1, like most good Ecotec companies will, and that highway mileage jumps up to 35-38MPG. How the car is driven has a lot to do with gas mileage, too. Weight of the car, too...LOL!

Sorry, I'll stop detracting from this predominantly V6 discussion, now.

caffeine

iTrader: (2)

I was saying high-power turbo 4s; not necessarily stock turbo 4s. My friend's tuned 95 STI was awful on gas, even though it only weighs 26-2700 lbs. It was fast though. My friends 97 A4 with a 350-400whp 1.8t is also really bad for fuel economy.

If it was still stock the 1.8t Audi would probably be decent on gas, but then again they only make something like 170 hp. Not exactly what I would call a high-power turbo 4.

RubberDucky

iTrader: (4)

With any motor this is the case, including our V6s. If you are pushing 600+ HP you aren't getting 25MPG, too much fuel is needed for that level of power.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

cruising at highway speeds you aren't using all that power though, my IPW's are around 3ms at 60 in 4th with the TCC locked.. at WOT they're around 7 or 8.

It's all in the tuning, pretty easy to do with a good engine design and a good computer.


I averaged 27 MPG highway yesterday w/o using lean cruse mode.. AFR's were around 14.5 most of the time with about 32 degrees of advance.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

The reason any built or high power engine doesn't get 25+ MPG is because they aren't driven in a way to achieve that.

Why would you?

Why build an engine that has 600+ HP, but then only use 100 HP?

We build these power houses to have fun and beat on them.

A vehicle requires no more power, and therefore fuel, cruising down road at 55 MPH, whether it has a 100 HP engine or a 1000 HP. The same power at the ground is required (assuming same vehicle and weight). This means that the same amount of fuel is needed.

If I stayed out of the loud pedal on my car I would get 25+ MPG, but since I installed a turbo on purpose, I drive it like it has one, usually, because I built it to have fun, not putt around in.

project89

iTrader: (1)

thirdgen only takes around 15.5hp to maintian 55 mph

even though i built mine to go fast for day to day driving i do still drive it like its a lil geo metro

like i tell everyone drive it like normal and it will pull down 30+ mpg on the highway , drive it like a madman and it will get about 12 mpg

Gary Dan

OK this discussion has been going on since 1967 ( v6 vs v8 ) It all depends on what YOU want. I have a 1988 v8 camaro convertible and a 2010 v6 camaro and I love em both. It's just that some people only belive what they want and nothing else. Its like thinking - lots of people do not do it........... consider the commercial --- 9 out of 10 doctors recomend bayer asprin -------i always think what does that 10th doctor know that the other 9 doctors do not. hahah

Guest

Well, you have 25 year old V8 power. You may have as much power AS A CERTAIN V8, but there will always be a V8 that will out power a V6. I don't think anyone here would argue that fact.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

lol, yah... modern V8 power is a little different than 80's power.


even my old 91 RS with a TBI 305, auto trans and 3.42 gears was a blast to drive. Wasn't fast but it would sure do nice burnouts and sounded mean.

Guest

That's half the fun, am I right?

RubberDucky

iTrader: (4)

That's all that matters. Lol

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

That's more than half the fun. lol

caffeine

iTrader: (2)

No you can't really argue that but the fact remains that LS1s/builds are expensive and V6s generally are a lot cheaper. If you don't have super high power goals then a V8 may not be the way to go.

Fallen2603

Well, those are both AWD examples that have a lot more parasitic drivetrain power-loss than RWD or FWD. One possible reason for your poor gas mileage out of a high-power turbo four-cylinder observation.

Also, I'm curious as to what their WOT AFR's are set at. Do you know?

caffeine

iTrader: (2)

I wouldn't say a LOT more drivetrain loss but more loss yes. AFRs probably between 11:1 and 11.5:1.

One thing in particular about the 1.8T that made gas mileage awful is that my friend said on a long road trip in an uphill stretch he had to be in boost just to maintain highway speed.

Fallen2603

It is more than most RWD or FWD set-ups, though. Those AFR's seem a little low to me, too.

Ah, that probably had a lot to do with it, too. Uphill driving will kill mileage regardless of drivetrain.

carattini

Don't forget that the most powerfull Third Gen from Factory was a V6 Turbo 20 Aniversary.

mars061

I should put an LS1 in my v6 car, err no wait, I'd lose 200HP

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Bone stock the '92 SLP Firehawk was, however with a few mods to the prom while upping the boost the '89 TTA will annihilate it...

Dakota W.

I loved my 305. 16 city and 26 highway, and I drive like a maniac with my foot to the floor whenever possible. I've owned a v6 before, it got 18 city and 23 highway. Stop BSing about being more efficient, a well tuned v8 is just as efficient as a v6. You sure as hell are not going to be getting good gas mileage doing anything on the track or street racing in a v6 or a v8, so what does efficiency matter if all your mpgs come from cruising? I'd rather have a v8 because they require less parts to make more power, as opposed to a v6 needing more parts to make the same power as a v8. Plus, I've yet to hear a v6 that doesn't sound like it's electric. A v6 doesn't rock the car back and forth at idle either.

mcrandrz

So i'm just wondering. If your all for v8 what are you doing on the v6 board? o.0


Posted from Thirdgen.org App for Android

kmcn47

funny my 305 has been complete **** and i hate it, lol its still running though

Dakota W.

Cause I read stuff on all the boards.

jhainer

as one stated Gas suzzling bbc yes i have one matter of fact it get maybe 4 miles to the gallon the 930 holley doesn't help in that dept. but as for the v6 see i can have teh perspective of both in the 17 camaro i have owned since i was 17 more of them were v6'ers than v8 my favorite camaro was a 87 v6 -t5 was it quick yes it was was it fast some thought so 80 in third was great. but back then there wasn't a huge market for the v6 back then gm did make aftermarket heads for it but they were outrageous in price. ebelbrock made one intake for it noone else did and there were 3 cams to chose from one basiclly stock and mild cam then a race cam that was it then headers were hard to find for a camaro that is then dress up parts were hard to find . so i went out and spend a income tax check and a check i got for a totaled car cant remember the total but it was alot. rebuild the bottom end reworked the heads went 30 over on the pistons roller rockers the mild cam the edelbrock intake i want to say it was a 490 or maybe a 390 cfm holley carb. msd headers shift kit for the 700r4 behind it flowmaster exhaust had it professionally put together and what did i have a v6 that could barly keep up with factory 305's was it a nice car yes was it a nice motor yes did it sound good nope not at all when you got on it sounded like pissed off bummble bee's pulled off the flowmaster put on factory muffler it sounded much better and had more tourqe cherp tires in second. back then tho there wasn't alot of people doing turbos so that wasn't an option back then. but with all being said i think the v6 is a better balanced car than the v8 expecially mine since i am a all iron big block. what i would like to do it a v6 4.3 build it then either turbo or supercharge it. do all the suspention goodies and see how it would do in autocross i bet it would be a fun little car . so bottom line not all v8 guys think the v6er's need to build it a v8 if your happy with a v6 then make it the best v6 you can. I tried many years ago when it really wasn't popular it didn't work for me cause the times were different back in the early 90's when i did it. hot roding is about making it yours whichever way you feel fits your personality and budget. me i always since 86 that is wanted a big block third gen so i did it. could i make the same hp with a ls yep and get better gas mileage yep i could i get told all the time put an ls in it . nope I wanted a big block so i built a big block. have fun with whatever you build don't let anyone take your enjoyment out of it it's not there car.

Guest

The problem with the V6 board is, no matter what the discussion it almost always turns into a V8/V6 debate. V8 guys being *******s and the V6 guys being a little loopy when they try to say a V6 is FASTER (they CAN be, it's the guys that stridently rail that they are just a faster power plant no matter what). V6's can be and are fast as hell. Something's gotta be said though for the rumbling, spitting, volatile power of a V8. There's a reason the muscle cars of old are always remembered to be faster than they really were. V8's just stir your manhood up from its slumber in ways a V6 can't.

P.S. It makes me scratch my head though when I look on this board and see a higher percentage of the V6's being stupidly fast (for what they are) than the V8's. Not many boards I have seen that aren't solely V6 related can match it. Good job V6 faithful.

kmcn47

i just plain find that statement creepy

Fallen2603

Hmmm...how about we compare a "well tuned" V8 to a "well tuned" V6, then? You know, make the efficiency contest a little more...fair.

Dakota W.

Just think of it this way, ladies love the v8s.

I'd like to see it done. I don't care if it's something as simple as intake and exhaust mods and a tune. 3.1 versus 5.0, or 3.8 vs 5.7, or 4.0 vs 6.0.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

Okay, here's the "well tuned" stage II V6...

Dakota W.

Where's the numbers? where's the comparison? What was the point of the video? All you did was show me a transam with a turbo on it and revved the engine a few times. Let's see an equally modified v8 car, and numbers for both cars.

Street Lethal

iTrader: (16)

The point of the video jack@ss is that it gets excellent gas mileage, runs low nines, sounds just like a V8, is a Stage II 4.1 turbo V6, and it "rocks back and forth at idle" lmmfao! I can't believe you would even say that, "rocks back and forth at idle", grow up kid lmao!

That car will blow the doors off of any V8 that you were ever in my friend. Where are its' numbers? Hold on, lemme give Harry Anderson a call, and this was with the old 3.8 engine, 650 to the wheels...

... oh, and great gas mileage is just a tune away, believe it!

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Well this thread has ran it's course.