High Feature V6 Swap

[The Dark Side of Will]

What would be the effect running the HVAC heater lines in reverse?

Since I'm going to have to run the coolant lines in reverse it would be simple to use the 88 heater return line as the feed.

I don't see how running the heater core backwards would have any effect at all. Obviously that won't work with the A/C...

[draven]

Cool....or rather warm

Might try that with the heater core lines then, always have a backup 86 set if it's insufficient for some reason

[draven]

Test fitting the EFR 8374 with Camaro LFX low pressure fuel line and crude mocked up collector attached for finding that happy spot between the HPFP, HPFP cam lobe head extension, low pressure fuel line, Tstat housing, Shifter Brackets, decklid torque rods, and decklids support brace all at the same time...







May have to ditch my torque rods and go with gas struts and obviously bend and extend the WG actuator..

Some combination of ceramic coating, head shielding, gel coated fuel line wrap, and turbo blanket will be in order......

[Shaun41178(2)]

Looks good. Tight fit for sure

[draven]

Two interesting turbo fitment notes..

From what I've been informed, the step down from the EFR 8374, the 7670, has the same exact same frame size so no real space saving if going to an immediately lower flow EFR turbo.

I set the block more or less perfectly square on the cradle with regards to axles, however, if one were to set the block forward 1-2" , although the axles would be canted forward slightly, the stock LF3/LF4 twin turbos would probably fit. It would be super tight at the top of the engine bay with respect to the turbo to IC charge pipes but it looks like it would fit.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I set the block more or less perfectly square on the cradle with regards to axles, however, if one were to set the block forward 1-2" , although the axles would be canted forward slightly, the stock LF3/LF4 twin turbos would probably fit. It would be super tight at the top of the engine bay with respect to the turbo to IC charge pipes but it looks like it would fit.

People go to great lengths to make sure their CV joints are straight, but it really isn't very important.

[draven]

People go to great lengths to make sure their CV joints are straight, but it really isn't very important.

Hindsight being the 20/20 it always is, one could keep the oem turbos or rather reconfigure with a CTS VSport / ATS-V setup (as longitudinal layout has some advantages in the fiero ironically), and fab removable access panels in the trunk and the firewall, much like the Ferrari 340 Modena's and Porsche Boxster, if necessary.

[NoMad]

Are we making new mounts?

But really, if that is the route I am happy to jump back in as needed.

Would certainly be a good plan for making the spool near instant like stock.

[draven]

Are we making new mounts?

But really, if that is the route I am happy to jump back in as needed.

Would certainly be a good plan for making the spool near instant like stock.

Absolutely not .... just waxing in regards for others who may want to follow the same route so they can avoid all the additional fabrication I am having to do with regards to plumbing when there is an OEM solution.

After driving my wife's new Saab 9-3 Aero 2.8 Turbo , the GM LP9, also on the 2011 Caddy SRX sport, which has a rather long charge air route (right side of engine --> front mount IC --> left side of engine -->back side of engine --> TB/Intake manifold) the boost comes on plenty fast and almost too early and abrupt for daily driving. Granted it is a single TD04.

Furthermore, I want to see how this engine responds to a properly sized single turbo and make sure the XTS LF3 (the cheapest of the trio, XTSv, CTSv, ATSv) is just as competent at LF4 power levels when the only differences between the two is turbos, crankshaft, and titanium rods. The only difference between the CTS V-Sport LF3 and the LF4 is the crankshaft/rods. The CTS LF3 has the exact same turbos as the LF4, just runs a maximum boost of 12-13psi whereas the LF4 GM turned the boost up to 18-19psi.

[draven]

Does anyone have any data on the weight of the decklid with wing?

Going to try a short compact 2nd Gen explorer McMaster Carr gas strut layout from the hinge out to the furthest rear hinge bracket.

[NoMad]

Not sure the weight but when you take with wing off it all but jumps up! I will need to remove my deck soon and can weigh it for a rough number.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Does anyone have any data on the weight of the decklid with wing?

Going to try a short compact 2nd Gen explorer McMaster Carr gas strut layout from the hinge out to the furthest rear hinge bracket.

Rodney Dickman has already done the homework on that:
http://rodneydickman.com/product_info.p ... cts_id=439
http://rodneydickman.com/product_info.p ... cts_id=113

Not sure the weight but when you take with wing off it all but jumps up! I will need to remove my deck soon and can weigh it for a rough number.

AIUI, all Fieros use the same decklid springs, but the springs are installed in different holes in the hinge boxes depending on the weight of the decklid config with which the car was originally built.

[draven]

Does anyone have any data on the weight of the decklid with wing?

Going to try a short compact 2nd Gen explorer McMaster Carr gas strut layout from the hinge out to the furthest rear hinge bracket.

Rodney Dickman has already done the homework on that:
http://rodneydickman.com/product_info.p ... cts_id=439
http://rodneydickman.com/product_info.p ... cts_id=113

True, but I'm not a fan of the traditional struts setup and Rodney's new compact setup is "supposed" to be run with factory strut rods...

From Rodney:

"To start this kit is only for those that still have the factory springs still in place. This for those that have a rear deck lid that will not stay up.

My opinion is that to use a higher pressure strut for those that have removed the factory springs might make the rear deck lid warp over time. It would be a lot of pressure pushing upward when the rear deck lid is closed. My other rear deck lid strut kits have the struts close to parallel to the deck lid when the deck lid is closed. I may look in the future at making a dual kit for those that have removed both factory springs."

I think I can mount a mcmaster short strut right below the hinge point itself and again at the third bolt on the decklid support which should keep the closed orientation near parallel. Somebody did something very similar on Old Europe years ago but for the life of me I can't find it... Just trying to calculate the lbs of force for the decklid as the lid will have a great deal of mechanical advantage on the strut so stout ones will be in order, especially with the center of gravity biased toward the rear of the lid and with the GT wing thrown in as well.

[ericjon262]

I removed the springs, and I intend to use a simple prop rod. I'll probably make it out of aluminum for a couple bucks, ditch weight off the back of the car, and have fewer components to fail.

[draven]

I removed the springs, and I intend to use a simple prop rod. I'll probably make it out of aluminum for a couple bucks, ditch weight off the back of the car, and have fewer components to fail.

Can't say I haven't thought about that too......

[ericjon262]

only thing to consider in addition to the prop rod, is a small spring to lift the lid off of the latch when the decklid release button is pressed, similar to on the hood.

[The Dark Side of Will]

From Rodney:

"To start this kit is only for those that still have the factory springs still in place. This for those that have a rear deck lid that will not stay up.

My opinion is that to use a higher pressure strut for those that have removed the factory springs might make the rear deck lid warp over time. It would be a lot of pressure pushing upward when the rear deck lid is closed."

What does he think the springs do when the decklid is closed?

[draven]

decklid warp

[ericjon262]

are you planning to use the LF4 intake or a N/A intake?

[draven]

Lf4/lf3 integrated AW intake.. It's not ideal with the two side entries but it is very compact and fits nicely into the decklid center cavity with no need for a scoop for clearance or a separate core mounting location.

The lf4 vacuum block with wg/bov solenoids add too much height, and although the lf3 setup is remote in the bay i can't find one for a decent boneyard price so im going to rework an lf4 setup.