My latest aquisition.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:16 am

take a look for yourself. I would post pics but my camera takes shitty pics as its broken.

here is the vid right click save as please.

http://www.shaun.saturnet.net/pics/Videos/000_0081.MOV

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:32 am

This is the sickest thing I've ever seen when it comes to 60*s.

Bow-tie aluminum block and a wicked ITB intake, the perfect fiero engine?

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:38 am

Dammit, yours has more hoses and bars than mine.

Now you need some Potter cylinders heads for your cylinder head rack and you can have quite a pile of almost-one-of-a-kind parts that you'll never use.

Fast88Fiero · Post by **Fast88Fiero** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:39 am

:thumbleft:

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:30 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote:Now you need some Potter cylinders heads for your cylinder head rack and you can have quite a pile of almost-one-of-a-kind parts that you'll never use.

Got me there. And you are probably correct.

I took some pics. I didn't resize them figure you guys can save them if you want. This is why my camera sucks. takes crap pics. Videos are awefull now too. I have every light on in the house window shades up and windows open, doors open, and it still looks too dark.

http://www.shaun.saturnet.net/pics/Fier ... eparts.JPG

http://www.shaun.saturnet.net/pics/Fier ... parts2.JPG

http://www.shaun.saturnet.net/pics/Fier ... parts3.JPG

and another vid too.

http://www.shaun.saturnet.net/pics/Videos/000_0082.MOV

here is a list of what I got minus a few odds and ends.

1- intake
1- set of velocity stacks 6 inches high
1- set of velocity stacks with K&N cone filters on them 6 inches high plus filters.
1- set of fully ported and polished gen 2 heads by Katech engineering. Dual valve springs, TI retainers? modified combustion chambers
1 set of modified valve covers by Katech engineering.
1 set of head studs for the aluminum heads with 6 point nuts and washers
2- roller cams. One is a Lunati I beleive and one is a Schneider
2 sets of Crane gold race roller rocker arms
lots of rocker arms studs for the Crane rockers
1 set of Schneider dual valve springs in box with retainers
assorted pushrods from several different companys. They look very expensive.
Asst gaskets

Maybe some other tiny things that I have forgotten about. Picked these up in Toledo about 4 months ago.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:37 pm

not to mention all the orange stripes.. get a new camera dude

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:56 pm

Kohburn wrote:not to mention all the orange stripes.. get a new camera dude

Seriously. If you can afford that list of parts, a camera should be nothing.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:20 pm

shutup aaron. If you can afford to do a dohc buildup and swap then you can afford to have a 52 Hd Plasma tv.

but yes you are correct. I actually can afford a new cam.

Assembled the intake and stacks sit about 13 inches off the deck of the block. I measured from the base of the dist hole.

the gen 3 intake sits abut 9 inches above the deck height. I am guessing the Fiero intake is around the same as well.

http://www.shaun.saturnet.net/pics/Videos/assembled.MOV

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:45 pm

This is why I dont understand why you want my heads, you should definatly use the gen 2 heads.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:17 pm

Shaun41178(2) wrote:shutup aaron. If you can afford to do a dohc buildup and swap then you can afford to have a 52 Hd Plasma tv.

I never said that I couldn't afford a 52 HD TV. I'm sure I could. But that doesn't mean I need one. The last time I turned my TV on was over a week ago. It has a DVD player, and I don't even know if it works. 3 years and I've never used the thing. If I used a TV, or needed one, I'm sure I would buy one. But I don't.

You use a camera, well would, and thereofre that justifies the cost of a new one.

donk_316 · Post by **donk_316** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:22 pm

Very cool dude. Now bolt that shit together....

If you need any Gen3 stuff i still got a complete top end sitting around....lol!

MNFatz · Post by **MNFatz** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:55 pm

Any info on that intake? Who made it? The same people that did the heads?

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:38 pm

I have notes on the intake. but basically it boils down to this.

Some small racing firm in Indiana made it. Only made 6 of them. We know where 2 of the 6 are right now. Thats pretty much all I can give you without digging into my notes.

Rborecky · Post by **Rborecky** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:30 pm

Get that stuff off the carpet before momma kicks your butt hahahaha. Very nice and I would enjoy putting that together just for the thrill of wondering how it will sound and feel in the rear of a Fiero.
You also don't want that hidden under the hood unless you can get good cold air to it. Maybe side scoops like on the old dodges to get cold air to them?????? or 3 side scoops like the old Supercharged Buicks had on each fender????
Keep us posted. Rick B

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:43 am

I just saw the video with it assembled. Those runners are really short, thank God for the tall velocity stacks. You had better get one kickass cam and good flowing heads to take advantage of the RPM that that intake is going to want to sing at.

In this respect, the Falconer might be superior as it matches the power curve that the pushrod 60* typically has much better. Still good for top end, but not 8000rpm top end. So good luck getting it to harmonize well, if you do, it'd make for one nice sounding/performing motor.

The Dark Side of Will · Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:52 am

You want the throttles as close to the valves as possible to sharpen throttle response to the maximum extent possible. I don't know why Falconer put the throttles so far away from the valves.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:19 am

The Dark Side of Will wrote:You want the throttles as close to the valves as possible to sharpen throttle response to the maximum extent possible. I don't know why Falconer put the throttles so far away from the valves.

I wasn't talking about that, on an ITB setup the runner length includes all the piping above the plate as well, including the velocity stacks.

So while the RF intake may have a poorly placed throttle plate (Is it really that bad? see below), its gains IMHO are in the increased runner length, which will match much better to most every pushrod 660 out there. I think the highest I've ever seen a pushrod 60* run is 7000, and it had noticable drop off after 6000. Not saying it can't be done of course, but with the head and cam options (Or lack thereof), matching them to that intake effectively is going to be a challenge; solved only by a lot of money, and quite possibly more money than it is worth.

The RF intake was definately not designed and executed with soft drivability and throttle response in mind. As you said the plates are very far up the runner, as are the fuel injectors. While this may not provide for soft drivability, the power advantages are notable. I do not think anyone buys a fully ITB setup with these characteristics in mind. In mind is power, and typically high end power. Thus Shaun's setup may be great for throttle response and low RPM smoothness, but it may not be as efficient as it could be at the RPMs that the runners aim at. And while the RF still has long runners, they are still short enough to provide 7000rpm. And with the injectors so far away it gains a big advantage on the high end--exactly where Shaun's runners are designed to run. So in short, Shaun's intake is trying to get a good compromise between the two, and ends up restricting itself in the higher RPM where the runners will want to really breathe at.

All in all, I'd take the RF intake unless I was looking for power above 7000rpm, which IMHo is unrealistic in this setup (head/cam options). This isn't to say that it is a bad setup, it is no doubt one of the best intakes for the 60* when looking at all out high end power, I just think the injector location should be retrofitted, maybe to the top of the horn.

It is quite ironic of me to say this as my ITBs have their injectors located much like his, maybe a bit higher. But like him I presume, I don't want my motor to be an all out race motor, it does need some form of streetability.

Wow, what a fucking worthless post...

The Dark Side of Will · Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:26 am

aaron wrote:So in short, Shaun's intake is trying to get a good compromise between the two, and ends up restricting itself in the higher RPM where the runners will want to really breathe at.

I don't know where in the world you got this...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:40 am

The Dark Side of Will wrote:
aaron wrote:So in short, Shaun's intake is trying to get a good compromise between the two, and ends up restricting itself in the higher RPM where the runners will want to really breathe at.
I don't know where in the world you got this...

I shouldn't have said restricting itself, just not letting itself reach the highest level of efficiency via fuel atomization. Once in the higher rpm that the runners are tuned for, the low mount fuel injectors are far injerior to the high mounts. But since this is a street setup that needs to idle below 2000rpm, some amount of low end delivery is needed, thus the high mounts may not be a good choice. As I said, a worthless post. I basically said his street driven ITB setup isn't a good design for all out racing...

But I will say that somehow adding runner length would do nothing but benefit this setup.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 pm

Aaron this isn't a street driven intake at all. Its setup for mechanical fuel injection and has everythign complete to run that too. There is nothing wrong either with having hte injector near the valve. Modern efi allows great atomization even with the injector close to the valve. Further away is proven to make less power and use more fuel. Why do you think manufacturers are going to direct injection? It uses less fuel and makes more power.

Also the guy I bought the parts from spun his motor to 7800. Blew three motors though. Spun cam bearings in the block. bottom end survived, but the cams which I now have were just too big and spun cam bearings ruining the blocks.

anyone have a gen 2 fuel rail they want to donate to science?