ALL RIGHT SHAUN

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:37 am

Its time we start colaberating on these aluminum motors.
You guys said mclaren or yenko, and my heads said RM company. Ive been digging, but coming up empty handed. Now I was tld befre hearing anything from anyone on any board that my motor came from a test facility where it was turboed making lotsa power. My mls head gasket sets lean me into believing that.

WE need to trace the history of these motors, and being as mine was found in NE and you found yours somewhere else, maybee the locations will help.

Also you said your heads had the bigger ho valves, and mine dont, so your seazts were either cut, or something.

Also I know you have pics.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:13 am

Ok well, Jon actually had the parts but did take quite a few pics, and did talk to the guy who had the parts when he picked them up.

The guy Jon got the parts from was either a Ex gm engineer, or a freind of an ex gm engineer who actually still does some part time work for GM. Still has a desk and everything. Little side tangent here, this guy apparently has a set of 60 degree heads under his desk with 2.02 intake valves in them. Not sure if its the Al heads or the Iron, but thats what I heard. GM would throw all there test shit away in a dumpster out back, well a janitor found them and snagged them and gave them to the guy. COuld have probably gotten in trouble at the time, but I doubt GM won't care too much now.

I beleive the block that we actually picked up was the actual one used in the Fiero turbo test car back in the day. At least that is what I think I remember Jon telling me from the guy he got it from telling him.

I beleive Jon told me the heads were made by Mclaren(which the guy told him they were), the blocks were made by Gm I believe. Mclaren did do a lot of prototype work and other projects for GM back in the 80's so this is sort of beleiveable. With yours haveing an RM stamp on the side I don't know what to say about that. I am thinking, being prototype heads, whoever made them wouldnt' have put any sort of identifiable stamping on them. Fact is being only prototype you don't need to or GM didn't want them to. So the stamp on yours could have come later after they were passed on down the line. Maybe it was a stamp from a machine shop or something. After 10-20 years, those heads could have been passed down from many different people.

the stuff jon picked up was actually found on ebay by me. Guy was in Indiana I think. We called the dude up and just made a cash offer on all this stuff. The motor used to be in a kit car or something. You might be able to search Old Europe for our original thread when the details were crisper.

But he drove and picked up the parts. Remember after 15+ odd years or more, these parts could make their way anywhere around the country. Finding themselves in private owners hands, or schools doing engine research or what not. Rumor has it, Falconer also has his hands on a set or just 1 Design 1 Aluminum head. Rumor anyways. Thought Will might have snagged it in his dealings but I guess not.

The gaskets we got were made from steel I think. Just a solid sheet. I think I still have a pic of that somewheres.

Our heads did not have the bigger HO valves. THey had the small ones. I at the time was talked into not using them by Jon because the Gen 2 or Gen 3 heads which I also had flowed much better and would make more power. Plus I sort of wanted the money as I needed some extra cash at the time, so I passed on that, which I sort of regret now but its all good. But after doing more research I learned that the HO valves can fit with just simple machining. They still wouldnt' flow as much as Gen 2's or Gen 3's, but it would have made the install much simpler bolt in wise and less downtime on the car.

I will get pics posted shortly. Jon took all the pics so they aren't the best, nor did he get pics from angles that I wanted too. He is a mother bitch what can I say.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:24 am

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:00 pm

Yes, thank you. Now I am running those same head gaskets, only mine have another layer to them, the steel then gasket material on one side. I used spray on copper to seal the metal side.

I know jon had the engineers ph # so I want that too, he never answers any emails or pms from me.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:00 pm

also, Mine had the same green stripe acdelco plugs.

Also, KS might designate a place for a Knock Sensor. maybee.

head gaskets (I had several sets) ! got ruined the first install when the head bolts stripped out, the second set my brother trashed on accident, moving stuff around. and the third, bottom set is in the car now holding strong.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/p8ntman44 ... pg&.src=ph

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:22 pm

You know, You removed a lot of info and pics from OE. Fucking shame. Anyways Jon said the block is setup for roller cam? How do you know this? Im running the flat tappet stock fiero cam.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:49 pm

Jon isn't on here much if at all. He gets blocked from work, and is too fiero owner to get internet at his home so that is one reason why he doesn't get back to you I am guessing

A lot of info was probably removed because we got banned. I think I might have been the one to do that. Hell if they don't want us there, then why share info with them.

The KS doesnt' stand for knock sensor. Its stamped next to the bolt holes that are there on the iron heads too for the a/c or dogbone brackets. I have no idea what it means but he took taht pic I am guessing becuase it was the only marking on the head.

I never saw the block and looked at it up close to compare it to my al block. A roller cam is probably doable though. You can do a roller cam in the gen 1 iron blocks too, you just have to have special lifters.

Jon still has that other gasket set if I am not mistaken. He put it up in the mall I think long ago.

Got a link from OE that I can look at to joggle my brain?

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:42 pm

http://www.fiero.com/forum/Archives/Arch ... 44049.html

and

http://www.fiero.com/forum/Archives/Arch ... 43999.html

thats it for now, its about quarter of 8, shaun, you should look for a pm from me in about an hour.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:49 pm

http://www.trifocus.net/~fws/magazines/hpp-tdtckk.html

Tracking Down the Corvette killer killer
by Cliff Gromer
from the Power Shifts Article
High Performance Pontiac, February 1984

It started our as a rumor. A pretty nasty rumor. A couple of guys from Detroit called and asked us if we had heard. We got several letters from readers who wanted to know what we knew about it. Then a couple of Chevy and Pontiac engineer friends called, and severl product planners too. All friends who had heard the rumors and wanted to know if we had heard them too.

The rumors centered on Pontiac's forthcoming-for-1985 V6 engine project for the Fiero. It was a loose secret that Pontiac was working on an all-aluminum 2.9 liter 60-degree V6 with multiport fuel injection and twin turbos. The engine reportedly put out about 290 horsepower. The engine would have made the Fiero the fastest and quickest production car in America.

Word had it that the project had been killed. Further word put Bob Stempel, Chevy's general manager and GM vice president, as the villian. To protect his new baby, the '84 Corvette, Stempel had supposedly convinced GM corporate management to squash the V6 engine for the Fiero to ensure that the Corvette remained America's (and GM's) premier performance sports car.

We reported the story as we had it in the last issue. But a few things didn't jibe, so we decided to probe further. And probe we did. We called several engineers in Pontiac, who had been reliable sources of information in the past. We also called several sources at Chevrolet including the boss himself, Robert C. Stempel. This is what we found out.

First of all, Pontiac did have several examples of the 2.9 V6 Fiero built and running. Several of GM's top management drove the car. And the project was killed, at the highest levels of the corporation. So far, we haven't been able to find out whether it was GM chairman Roger Smith or president Jim McDonald. It doesn't matter. The 2.9 liter aluminum twin-turbo injected V6 engine is dead.

Now, why. Here, the picture gets a little muddy. The official Pontiac word - at least as official as they get in talking about future product - is that the engine was killed because management thought Pontiac should stick to building and further developing the 2.5 liter Iron Duke 4-cylinder engine. And, they point ouf further, there's already in place the Super Duty parts program for that engine which allows the enthusiast to build a Four that pumps out over 200 horsepower.

What this version of the story says is that the GM beancounters saw no return in developing a new version of an engine already made in another form by Chevrolet. They saw no return on investing in an aluminum engine when there was already a High Output version at 2.8 liters in cast iron. And they saw no return setting up another engine line run by Pontiac.

What about the rumor that the engine was killed because the Fiero became unsafe with so much horsepower? That's nonsense, say engineers who were working on the project and who drove the V6 car many many miles. The performance was about the same levels as a 455 Super Duty powered '73 Trans Am. That would translate into zero-to-60 times of about 5.5 seconds and quarter mile time of about 13.90 second at over 100 mph.

It also means lots of wheelspin off the lie and a brutally oversteering car with power on through the turns. And don't forget, GM top management hasn't driven anything that fast for ten years. So maybe the brass was spooked after they drove the twin-turboed Fiero. Maybe they did think it was too fast and unsafe.

Then there's the question of Bob Stempel having the project killed. We put it to Stempel straight on:

"Bob, the rumor is that you had the V6 project Fiero killed because you felt the car's performance would dull the luster of the new Corvette. What about it?"

"That is pure poppycock. Chevrolet is as excited as Pontiac about the car. It's a terrific concept and very well done. Chevrolet has no say whatsoever in what Pontiac does. Divisions do not get in each other's way in matters like that. It's to everyone's advantage at General Motors to have a healthy Pontiac Motors Division."

Besides that, Chevrolet is commited to maintaining the Corvette as the top production performance car in the world. And if that means letting Dave McLellan, Herb Fischel, and the other guys at Chevy engineering turn up the wick on the 350 small block, the necessary stuff is only a parts bin away.

Meanwhile, what about the future performance of the Fiero? As the road test in this issue reveals, it's a neat little car but needs more ponies under the mid-engine hatch. Project engineers tell us that any X-car drivetrain will fit in the Fiero, and that it was designed specifically to take a V6 engine. This allows for a myriad of possibilities. Latest word as we go to press is that there will definately be a V6 option for the Fiero next year. As it stands now, it will be Chevy's standard tune 2.8 liter unit, with the 135 hp HO version as an additional option. And there's the very real possibility that the Super Duty parts will find their way to the production line sooner than anyone thinks. A 200 hp Four is not too shabby either.

Either way, the '85 Fiero is going to be a screamer. Pontiac promised us.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:52 pm

HMMMM<

My bore is 88.96 as marked on the pistons when I got the engine. How is this a 2.9? Obviously the stroke is different, but that means crank or connecting rods? I didnt compare when the engine was out. Didnt think I needed too.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/p8ntman44 ... pg&.src=ph

The Dark Side of Will · Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:54 pm

2.8 & 3.1 use same rods despite difference in stroke.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:07 pm

a 2.8 bored over woudl make a 2.9. Or they sleeved down the aluminum block, and used a 3.1 crank. I don't think they had the 3.1 crank that early though, so I am thinking it was just an overbore.

I read that the motor did break cranks so they might have been using the smaller journal crank, which might have been one reason to step to the larger mains for the crank in the later years.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:33 pm

Well my motor was definatly used and r&r'ed and it didnt have sleeves in it. So that makes me steer away from the sleeve route. It must diffrerent length rods. .1 liter isnt a big difference. Also the deck may be slightly higher, with a thicker gasket if they were boosting it.

ok, .1 liter/6 cylinders = .0166666 liters extra per cyl
1 liters = 0.001 meters^3
volume of a cylinder is area x height
area = (pi X d^2)/4 = diameter = 88.96mm =.08896m
area = .005931 meters square.
.00621555(height difference) = .1 liter or .0001m^3

difference in stroke or deck height would be 16.1mm

the 2.8 stroke is 76mm if the difference was split between pistons and rods, you could reduce the stroke to 68mm thats not too good. were talking moving the piston down over .5 inches.

My math has lead me to no conclusions.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:34 pm

Shaun41178(2) wrote:
I read that the motor did break cranks so they might have been using the smaller journal crank, which might have been one reason to step to the larger mains for the crank in the later years.

where did you read that, cause I heard the same thing. Maybee it was you who said it.

The Dark Side of Will · Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:53 pm

You screwed up your math somewhere, because the 2.8 crank is 76mm and the 3.1 crank is 84mm... 8mm gets you 0.2 litres.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:20 pm

1 (millimeter cubed) = 1.0 Ã— 10-6 liters or .000001 liters
100,000 mm^3 = .1 liter

area of a circle (pi*d^2)/4 = (3.1415*88.96^2)/4= 6215.54mm^2

100,000mm^3 / 6215.54mm^2 = 16.088mm divide that by 6 cylinders and you get a height difference of 2.68144mm or a little over a tenth of an inch.

that makes more sense.

whats the difference in crank journals?
wa=hats a standard head gasket thickness?

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:05 pm

bump, shaun give me the user name of the ebay seller who sold the stuff, so I can track down the new owner. I know you can just call Jon and get me the number of the engineer as well.

oh yeah..... please.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:15 am

I dont' remember the name of the ebay seller sorry. You want to kknow the new owner of what? The block? The heads? I can find the guy with the block, but not the heads, nor the intake.

I doubt Jon has that number anymore for the engineer guy, or the guy who sold the parts to us. Its been like 2 years man since we bought that stuff so thats old info and I never had it, and I doubt Jon does anymore as well.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:17 pm

whatever you can dig up. If the guy with the block has sleeved it, he may have some good info. Im assuming it was you or jon that sold it on ebay, and I can figure out the user who bought it by looking at the dates and feedback.

Oversteer · Post by **Oversteer** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:43 pm

Now I could be wrong, and I will definetly have to check my sources BUT I do believe that the car labelled Porsche Eater was the Aluminum frame car (built by Alcan here in Ontario) with the HO Quad 4 installed.

I could be wrong, I will research more and post my findings.

I have a few friends that work for the engineering department here in Oshawa for GM but they laugh at me whenever I ask about the Fiero. I guess not everyone finds this as interesting as we do.

There is a rumour that Alcan or Magna (one or the other) still has an aluminum space frame from a Fiero. Mate that with the aluminum 60 degree and instant party bitches

Anyways, no more jacking your thread for today. My block/heads are made of Iron, and have nothing useful to add.

Oh one other thing. There was a Gen 1 race engine for sale awhile back on ebay, I think Shaun linked it for us. I believe that engine had shaft mounted roller rockers, but I could be wrong. I also think that engine had the larger valves, but once again I don't totally recall but it is evidence of at least one other in existance.