Page 2 of 4
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:53 pm
by Atilla the Fun
for what it would take to get there, I could do more. 1200-horse, pump-gas, production-iron-block LS builds are old news. The Fiero would never take it, but I chose the 5.3 because NOTHING else engine-wise is a better bang for the buck. To back it up, I'll keep a running total on my spending for all to see. And I won't do anything that can't be easily copied.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:18 am
by XzotikGT
huh? Ya lost me.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:08 pm
by Atilla the Fun
I'm saying it is obviously possible to get that thing to serious power levels, but the 3.6 does not have the potential of an iron-block 5.3. And for any given power level, the 5.3 can do it for less money. the 3.6 has 2 main advantages: the block is at least 3 inches shorter, and it should get better gas mileage.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:30 pm
by Aaron
Atilla the Fun wrote:the block is at least 3 inches shorter, and it should get better gas mileage.
The block is aluminum, it probably weighs at least 100lbs less, and it will get noticeably better gas mileage. Also, the swap will be much cheaper.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:33 pm
by Atilla the Fun
I seriously doubt that. I'm already $1200 ahead on the initial purchase of the engine, my $500 to that thing is $1700, right? And I got it home for $30. Thus I'm ahead on shipping. As for the block being lighter, the VVT adds alot back. And If it stays auto-trans, I'm closer in total weight.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:46 pm
by Aaron
Atilla the Fun wrote:I seriously doubt that. I'm already $1200 ahead on the initial purchase of the engine, my $500 to that thing is $1700, right? And I got it home for $30. Thus I'm ahead on shipping. As for the block being lighter, the VVT adds alot back. And If it stays auto-trans, I'm closer in total weight.
I'm not sure where you're getting the $1200 ahead figure. The 3.6 is $1000, so you're 500 ahead. But it comes with a harness/PCM, all needed accessories, exhaust manifolds and crossover, etc.
The VVT doesn't add much at all. The 3.6 is significantly smaller dimensionally, and the alloy block. I'd say 100lbs easy. And no one says it has to stay auto trans.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:25 pm
by The Dark Side of Will
The 3.6 is DOHC. That adds a lot of weight.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:24 pm
by Atilla the Fun
Thanks, Will
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:25 pm
by Aaron
Not as much as an all iron LSX block. I'm not saying it's light for what it is, I'm saying it's light compared to his 5.3--and it is.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:34 pm
by Atilla the Fun
the production 5.3 block is nowhere near as heavy as the LSX block. That x was designed to go to 511 ci, about 8.3-8.4 liters, and survive 2500 HP. My 5.3 has aluminum heads, and as I plan to use a remote, plastic water pump, my weight isn't bad. Plus all my weight is down low, I'd say my top end weight is actually less. To run a stick on the 3.6, you'll hafta wait until the camaro returns in late 2009 to get a flywheel.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:33 am
by The Dark Side of Will
Aaron wrote:Not as much as an all iron LSX block. I'm not saying it's light for what it is, I'm saying it's light compared to his 5.3--and it is.
If you're saying that, then find the numbers. Otherwise you're just speculating.
The 3.6 also has an aluminum intake manifold (no idea why...) vs. the nylon manifold on the Gen III/IV engines.
GM still can't take a V6 seriously.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:35 am
by The Dark Side of Will
Atilla the Fun wrote:the production 5.3 block is nowhere near as heavy as the LSX block. That x was designed to go to 511 ci, about 8.3-8.4 liters, and survive 2500 HP. My 5.3 has aluminum heads, and as I plan to use a remote, plastic water pump, my weight isn't bad. Plus all my weight is down low, I'd say my top end weight is actually less. To run a stick on the 3.6, you'll hafta wait until the camaro returns in late 2009 to get a flywheel.
The Saab 9-3 Aero's have the G6 6 speed available as an option with the turbo high feature V6. That's an enormous flywheel, but might serve as a start.
If you want to run a 282 or other "normal" FWD transmission, just have SPEC make a 2.8 flywheel with the 3.6 crank flange pattern.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:40 am
by Aaron
The Dark Side of Will wrote:
If you're saying that, then find the numbers. Otherwise you're just speculating.
The 3.6 also has an aluminum intake manifold (no idea why...) vs. the nylon manifold on the Gen III/IV engines.
GM still can't take a V6 seriously.
I tried at one point, but was unable. Let me look again. I want to say the only number I saw was 350lbs, ready to install (Wet, all accessories and wiring).
I believe the reason for the alloy intake manifold was because it has that retarded variable plenum design, basically the wannabe variable-runner intakes of the SHO.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:52 pm
by XzotikGT
Yeah the Intake is aluminum beacsue it is varaible in some applications. The thing that turned me on to this motor was the stout bottom end. It has everything we wished the 3.4 DOHC was built with on the bottom end, forged crank rods, oil squirters, coated aluminum pistons, 6 bolt mains, structural oil pan. That says pottential to me. Then theres the top end. Varaible cams, intakes and the whole thing is aluminum. Then the dynograph shows a a flat curve.
I can bold th six speed auto with paddle shift form the saturn Aura to it, or the 2.8Turbo veriosn of this motor's 6 manual six speed foun in the Saab 9-3. Also I think there a few othere transmisiions that will bolt up to it just fine.
Tunning to get it all to run is 400.00 dollars from several companies using the stock PCM.
http://media.gm.com/aus/holden/en/produ ... ations.htm
http://www.mechtech-ms.com/ctsv6.php
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:06 am
by Atilla the Fun
It'll have great potential once JE makes some pistons and COMP grinds some cams, and once Diablosport and HP Tuners and those guys get some user-customizeable, infinitely-adjustable programmers on the market. plus we'll need things like mounts and headers to make it a bolt-in swap into all the popular older chassis. This all exists for the 5.3, but it'll be 2-5 years for this engine. Ford has put variable intake manifolds in a numer of things, but the '90 ZR1 was the first thing in America to try any such thing. As to the flywheel, pardon my ignorance.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:38 pm
by XzotikGT
The ecm has alrady been hacked globally, and there are quite a few tuning companies offering tuning for the setup, or you can buy the software for around 500.00. All the tuning I have read about says the cams are perfect being variable and all, so they leave them alone. Tyhey only change low and high octane fuel and timing maps, and adjust torque management so the throttle input is more like a mechanical throttle.
I dont see why you wouldnt use the stock exhaust components. I tis a similar setup to the early twin cams, and I think the y pipe exits like the stock 2.8. Well, you would have to make changes if you got the RWD version.
Also you cannot bolt a standard 60degree v6 tranny to this motor. It has a different pattern. I would have been thrown this thing in if I could slap a one of our getrags to it.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:04 pm
by Atilla the Fun
282 might be easier, but I'd happily go with the G6 6-speed IF I could find one for say, $700. With that I would put a T76 on my 5.3
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:39 pm
by XzotikGT
I changed my mind, and have too many projects as it is. I will let this setup go for 750.00 plus shipping and fees. complete.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:05 am
by Atilla the Fun
that's a great price.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:42 am
by crzyone
Atilla the Fun wrote:that's a great price.