<edit> Apparently my wisdom and insight isnt welcome on this board. I'll be happy to take it elsewhere. </edit>

 

Im in the process of Rebuilding a 3.4 I have bored it 30 over due to normal engine wear. I Decided to install new pistons, Crane cam, Headers,Cai, Exhaust. I'm really interested in pushing the 3.4 to Its limit. What Heads and Intake would be required to help..

I Think you Have a great Article On the 3.4 OHV RWD Camaro

 

<edit> read above </edit>

 

I’m always a bit more then skeptical when some one suddenly shows up, spouts names and numbers and doesn’t provide the proof behind his numbers.

“At 60 degrees the Angle of the V shape is natural. EXACTLY replicating the letter V, the angle between cylinders is 608. The crankshaft in a six cylinder v-type engine has three throws of 120 degrees. With this combination, it makes the engine perfectly internally balanced.�

True, a 608 V angle IS more balanced then a 908 V-6, the ONLY perfectly balanced engine design is a rotary (Wankle) followed closely by a horizontally opposed, 1808 ‘boxer’ engine. The rotary has NO primary or secondary imbalance while the boxer’s secondary imbalance is well controlled by the crank’s design. The V-6 (60 and 908) needs ‘pork chops’ on the crank, a counterbalance shaft or a combination of both to quell secondary imbalance.

“At only 2� long and without any type of airflow acceleration present…�

When air is accelerated, it’s pressure drops and it becomes rather difficult to keep a properly suspended fuel charge in the intake air. This also applies to MPFI as well as carbs and TBI. Volumetric efficiency of an engine changes with rpm, temperature, humidity … and those 2� runners might be sufficient in some cases. For performance it’s desirable to keep the air velocity as constant as possible letting the air compress above the closed intake valve. Ever see a Cross Ram on a 413 stage 3 Dodge? If the air charge reaches too high a velocity it’s actually possible to cause the air to bounce back out of the intake track. Air is a compressible and it can act just like a spring. Another disadvantage to too high an intake velocity, the fuel drops out of suspension, pools up and runs into the cylinder as a liquid.

I could continue, but I think I made my point.
You’ve really done a lot of research into numbers, it shows. Now you should start to pay attention to the physics. Understanding why is probably more fun then quoting numbers.

 

So what's new?

 

well i dont have the want to argue with an asshat or two. so i guess you just made the whole board lose out on the value of my research.
without resorting to your level of *******ry - the article is available for reading at www.wcfbs.org (or www.westcoastfbodies.com) in the news area under articles.

im done with this board.

 

black34v6 that article is full of ****...haha jk

funny stuff, yea camarov6 is a lot more advanced that this site (no offense to anyone)

 

Rather then calling me an A**Hat or what ever and running off some rant, prove me wrong. Back up your numbers, show me the charts .... I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong if you can prove me wrong.

When you spout names and numbers and act like an authority some people will trust your word without question even if some of your facts aren't quite true. Sorry, I learned a long time ago to think for myself and question why. And if you can't back it up, don't say it.

All I got to say.

Oh and the '8' behind the 60, 90, 120 and 180is supposed to be the degree sign. Didn't cut and paste right. Sorry.

 

Don't go I'm really looking to everything about this, the 3.4 is still an odd design & using an upper manifold from an Grand-am is very interesting

 

If you look at the sticky on top of this section, all this dessirtation is explained in plain English, without a bunch af self congratulatory BS.