Real Fiero Tech

I just learned that in the European market, GM has recently offered a 276-HP, 2.8L Turbocharged version of the 3.6L engine, with an F40 six-speed, in a FWD Vauxhall Vectra. Probably wouldn't meet California emissions, but sounds interesting.

I don't think that Euro emissions standards are really any less stringent than US standards. Manufacturers put different products in different markets because of what they perceive that market wants. GM's perception is skewed.

They were offering the 2.8 turbo + F40 in the Saab 9-3 in the US market. Not sure why they couldn't put it in a Malibu or Pimpala.

The Saab Turbo X has the same drivetrain: 280 HP 2.8T, with 6 speed and AWD.

The Dark Side of Will wrote:I don't think that Euro emissions standards are really any less stringent than US standards. Manufacturers put different products in different markets because of what they perceive that market wants. GM's perception is skewed.

They were offering the 2.8 turbo + F40 in the Saab 9-3 in the US market. Not sure why they couldn't put it in a Malibu or Pimpala.

Probably because nobody who buys a Malibu or Impala would want either part of that combination. GM could do all kinds of things, but selling enough copies to cover the expense is a whole other proposition.

Put it in something smaller, lighter and cheaper. IDK what. The tiny cars from Korea, that get a 1.8L Ecotec? Please. That'd be a candidate if they'd add flares and wider tires. They could sell it at $19,000 and turn a fat profit, since it'd steal sales from the 263 hp Mazda, the Dodge turbo 4 cyl FWD thing, et cetera.

A 2.8 litre direct injected turbo V6 with the same state of tune as the DI turbo Ecotec would make 360 HP. That would be a nice engine for the CTS.

It'd be a nice medium engine for the Camaro.
And why can't we get the CTS-V blower on a 4.8L for the Silverado 1500 std. cab, short bed, 2WD? Without having to do it ourselves. And if they're gonna offer the 5.3L in the small pickups with extended or crew cabs, why not the 4.8 in the std. cab?
GM should be killed off before they suck any more than they have already sucked. Look at the '850'92 Camaros, keeping the 2.8 instead of getting the 4.3 like the Monte Carlo. Look at the Fiero, not getting the Buick 3.8 for '85. The ways in which GM has sucked could fill the library of congress. Twice.

Found out they've done a 321 HP version of the turbo 2.8L but it's also Euro-spec only.

Somebody needs to put a 2.8T/3.6T/F40 drivetrain in the Fiero... Never mind it'd cost several times what the car did and it'd still be a Fiero but it could be cool.

Been thinking about a 3.6 DI + F40. Turbo shouldn't be much harder...

I think a Turbo 3.6 with the MT2 ratios would be a truly excellent combo. I would actually buy a Greyhound bus ticket just for a ride in that combo, if that ride includes 2 things: 1) a full-throttle blast, from 1500 rpm to 7000 rpm, through first gear, and feather-light "acceleration" through sixth, from 850 rpm to 70 mph.

Atilla the Fun wrote:I just learned that in the European market, GM has recently offered a 276-HP, 2.8L Turbocharged version of the 3.6L engine, with an F40 six-speed, in a FWD Vauxhall Vectra. Probably wouldn't meet California emissions, but sounds interesting.

It does meet Cali emissions (it came in a Saab) and you can get the motors from various junkyards for ~$3500 usually.

When there's no demand, the prices drop. LKQ should be selling these for $500 soon enough. Maybe then put one in my sister's Grand Am, if I'm running low on ways to avoid finishing my other projects. That is what I'm accused of, right?
Series, thanks for the heads-up.

Use the 3.6 DI engine and the 2.8 turbo system with upgraded turbo.

You said there was a piston issue keeping us from doing that.

The 3.6 isn't built for boost, but neither are most of the engines we talk about boosting.

The 3.6 runs 11.3 compression on 87 octane, compared to the DI Turbo Ecotec at 9:1. It should be able to take at least 5 psi of boost on 93, though.

that's barely even on the bottom of the compressor maps of most turbos.

But it's still more power.

Could use the T3's from a 4 point nizzine, though.

There's at least one RMT 3.6 Camaro on the streets now. I'll have to go back and look at how much boost he's running.

The turbo 2.8 V6 seems dumb, since the USDM Chevy Colorado has a 2.9L all-aluminum 4 cylinder that's surely lighter and cheaper. Put the 2.8's turbo on that. In fact, if I had 2 more Fieros, I'd be strongly in favor of doing the 2.9 to one of them, with an F40-MT2. In the Colorado, it makes 185 hp at 5600 rpm, and 190 ft-lbs at 2800 rpm.

The Dark Side of Will wrote:But it's still more power.

Could use the T3's from a 4 point nizzine, though.

There's at least one RMT 3.6 Camaro on the streets now. I'll have to go back and look at how much boost he's running.

probably could double up on the head gaskets. Not ideal, but has been done before successfully