3.4/3.5 upper end swap

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 6, 2010 | 04:50 PM
  #21  
WIspartan1026's Avatar
May 2013 ROTM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,671
From: Farmington Hills, MI
ROTM Winner's Club
Default

what's wrong with your engine now? I had 111k on my 3.4/auto and sold them together with the harness and stuff for $700

You'd probably be better off just using a 3400 upper intake manifold. I think it would still work with the 3500 lower. It also looks a lot better than the 3500. For fitting under the cowl, you'd just have to grind off the lettering.

idk for sure what the advantages of using 3400 pistons are...with the 3500 heads and stuff I was told I could just keep a stock bottom end (another reason you're better off using 3500 heads instead of 3400 heads).
 
Old Nov 6, 2010 | 06:27 PM
  #22  
BasicConcepts's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Overdrive Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,597
From: Greenville, South Carolina
Technical User
Default

nothings wrong with the engine now im building another one so i still have my car then ill have no room for an extra engine to just sit around

with the intake im trying to kill some weight so if i can get rid of the bulky *** fuel rail and the aluminum upper for plastic i figure i could save like 10 lbs (every pound counts)
 
Old Nov 7, 2010 | 01:14 PM
  #23  
WIspartan1026's Avatar
May 2013 ROTM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,671
From: Farmington Hills, MI
ROTM Winner's Club
Default

the 3500 upper is plastic? really? didn't know that. I bought one, got it in the mail, found out it wouldn't fit under the cowl, and never took it out of the box lol.
 
Old Nov 7, 2010 | 01:49 PM
  #24  
BasicConcepts's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Overdrive Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,597
From: Greenville, South Carolina
Technical User
Default

ya i think the malibu is aluminum and the g6 is plastic im not too sure but i know the g6 is plastic
 
Old Nov 8, 2010 | 08:28 AM
  #25  
JordanN's Avatar
1st Gear Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 130
From: Florida
Default

Originally Posted by BasicConcepts
im pretty sure im gunna have the first 3.4 turbo ive been looking around and cannot find one anywhere
Hate to rain on your dreams but....

Grape of Wrath from the FTV6 forums already built a 3.4L turbo.
 
Old Nov 8, 2010 | 09:03 AM
  #26  
WIspartan1026's Avatar
May 2013 ROTM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,671
From: Farmington Hills, MI
ROTM Winner's Club
Default

Originally Posted by BasicConcepts
ya i think the malibu is aluminum and the g6 is plastic im not too sure but i know the g6 is plastic
well the Malibu and the G6 are the same car under the skin, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to be different. It's exactly the same motor.
 
Old Nov 8, 2010 | 07:13 PM
  #27  
BasicConcepts's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Overdrive Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,597
From: Greenville, South Carolina
Technical User
Default

Originally Posted by JordanN
Hate to rain on your dreams but....

Grape of Wrath from the FTV6 forums already built a 3.4L turbo.
thats ok its still cool

Originally Posted by WIspartan1026
well the Malibu and the G6 are the same car under the skin, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to be different. It's exactly the same motor.
ya it is aluminum but the 3.4 runners wont line up to the G6 lower and i read that along with the poorly designed heads the runners dont allow good flow on the 3.4
 
Old Nov 8, 2010 | 08:11 PM
  #28  
WIspartan1026's Avatar
May 2013 ROTM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,671
From: Farmington Hills, MI
ROTM Winner's Club
Default

which "runners" are you referring to?
 
Old Nov 8, 2010 | 08:14 PM
  #29  
BasicConcepts's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Overdrive Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,597
From: Greenville, South Carolina
Technical User
Default

the intake runners on the 3.4 wont line up to the lower intake off the 3.5 and did you see that HUGE article i posted here the other day on the 3.4 (prob not you have a LT1) but it said that the runners on the 3.4 dont allow enough flow

heres the link to the post
https://camaroforums.com/forum/93-02-general-41/wow-does-anyone-want-some-insight-3-4l-56612/

and specifically
"I then realized, in 1999, that Pontiac’s Grand Am GT was making 175hp/205tq from a 3.4L OHV FWD motor. I did research into this engine and found that GM had worked a different path on this motor and it was better than the 3.4 RWD. I did more research into engine design and found that runner lengths help determine how much power and torque the engine gets. I looked at the plenum and runner design on the “3400” engine as well as the 3.4 RWD and realized that the RWD runners were jokes. At only 2” long and without any type of airflow acceleration present, they looked like all they served was a means to get the air from the Y shaped plenum, which once I saw a cross section – laughed at, to the cylinders. That was when I decided then and there that the plenum and air intake system was the 3.4L’s weak point."
 

Last edited by BasicConcepts; Nov 8, 2010 at 08:18 PM.
Old Nov 8, 2010 | 08:21 PM
  #30  
BasicConcepts's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Overdrive Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,597
From: Greenville, South Carolina
Technical User
Default

Name:  100_0456.jpg
Views: 712
Size:  247.2 KB

... i may not be shedding too much weight with that monster but hell if i get power than were all set
 



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.