1 2 3
Toyman01
Toyman01 UltimaDork
10/9/13 9:38 p.m.

The good the bad and the ugly.

Some research shows, 300hp and 300+tq is possible with a mild amount of boost. Forged internals are available from the junk yard as well as roller rockers. Yes they sound like crap, yes the lower intake manifold gaskets are known for failure but, they are cheap, easily adaptable to RWD and abundant.

So, I'm picking this up tomorrow. 3.4 V6 and a 5 speed.

Under 5 bills.

Just for the moans and groans, the engine and transmission are going in the RX-7. The shell...well, still working on what might happen to it.

I start a build thread when I get around to it.

novaderrik
novaderrik PowerDork
10/9/13 9:53 p.m.

i've seen newer running V6.5 speed cars with the far better 3800 for the same money- a supercharger is a bolt on junkyard swap on those...

Toyman01
Toyman01 UltimaDork
10/9/13 9:57 p.m.

In reply to novaderrik:

I've been looking for one of them for a couple of years. If it runs, $1500 minimum around here and most of them are autos.

AquaHusky
AquaHusky Reader
10/9/13 10:15 p.m.

In reply to novaderrik:

As true as that is, the s/c 3800 is different internally compared to its n/a brother. The whole bottom end is stronger. You have some GPs going really fast on stock S/C rotating assy.

As much as I do like the 60* V6 GM made, the ones put into the F Bombs are still iron heads Gen1 builds. The FWD cars got the better Gen 2 and 3 with the aluminium heads that got splayed valves and better ports. I like the uim of the 3.4 in the F cars though.

novaderrik
novaderrik PowerDork
10/10/13 12:06 a.m.

reading the OP, it doesn't appear that he is scared of tearing the motor down and putting better parts in it to hold boost..

Trans_Maro
Trans_Maro UltraDork
10/10/13 1:09 a.m.

The guy I work for is an ex GM master tech.

FWIW, he doesn't have a whole lot of good things to say about the 3.4, this is for the FWD versions mind you. I haven't asked about the RWD engines.

The 3.8 is a totally different story and probably has a lot more potential.

Vigo
Vigo UberDork
10/10/13 3:49 a.m.

I dont hate that 4th gen f-body 3.4 (ive owned one) but i would like it a lot more in a different engine bay.

It really is a decent motor in that iteration.

Storz
Storz HalfDork
10/10/13 5:47 a.m.

Keep us updated :)

Ranger50
Ranger50 PowerDork
10/10/13 6:23 a.m.
Vigo wrote: I dont hate that 4th gen f-body 3.4 (ive owned one) but i would like it a lot more in a different engine bay. It really is a decent motor in that iteration.

I'm with Vigo.... It's "decent" for what it is and trying to do. At least a LSx swap is well documented.

The 3.4 sucks in the FWD because the rear bank doesn't get crap for airflow in a way tighter engine bay. That leads to blown gaskets on everything, plus the whole degraded coolant problem.

Toyman01
Toyman01 MegaDork
10/10/13 7:03 a.m.

What's probably going to happen.

3.4 block.

3500 forged crank.

3400 forged rods.

3400 hypereutectic pistons

3400 heads, upper and lower intake.

Megasquirt

It should give me a rotating assy. good for about 7000+rpm. At 10-15 pis of boost it should put me in the neighborhood of 350hp and 400 torque. Everything I've read says it will stay together.

The RX-7 is going to be the test bed. Ultimately, I'd like to see a similar setup in the Abomination. The 60 degree engine is compact enough to fit in it.

Jaxmadine
Jaxmadine HalfDork
10/10/13 7:06 a.m.

Its a decent motor. Id go with a 3.8 as stated. Always get the turbo setup from the older ones.

novaderrik
novaderrik PowerDork
10/10/13 7:14 a.m.
Jaxmadine wrote: Its a decent motor. Id go with a 3.8 as stated. Always get the turbo setup from the older ones.

the old 3.8 that was in the Grand Nationals and T Types in the 80's is a totally different engine than the 3800 that was put in the 96-02 F bodies and in all those millions upon millions of fwd GM cars.. the only similarities are the displacement and bore centers... i can't think of one instance where GM put a turbo on the newer "Series X" 3800, but they have built a LOT of supercharged versions since the early 90's. the blown 3800 in my '01 GTP moves it around really good and i've been known to average 30mpg on long interstate drives with it..

regarding the 60 degree V6 engine family: why not get a 3900 out of a newer minivan and build off that? the one in my mom's '08 Uplander does ok for something that's dragging around 5000 pounds of power sliding doors and built in dvd player... i've seen pages on teh internets where people have swapped them into engine bays that used to have 2.8 and 3.1 engines in them with good results...

Gearheadotaku
Gearheadotaku GRM+ Memberand UberDork
10/10/13 7:18 a.m.

I like the 60 degree engine. I've owned several examples in various forms and found it to be reliable and efficient. The Multi-port versions seemed to have ample power. The one place it never felt "happy" was the gen 4 F-body. It's compact size should make it a more common swap candidate. I like where this build is going.

Strike_Zero
Strike_Zero SuperDork
10/10/13 7:21 a.m.

60° V6 Forum

I have a 3400 v6 that pulled a few months back that I may use in the challenge Corolla. 185 giddy ups for $160 . . . Why not??

Can't wait to see how this turns out!!

Ranger50
Ranger50 PowerDork
10/10/13 7:28 a.m.
novaderrik wrote: regarding the 60 degree V6 engine family: why not get a 3900 out of a newer minivan and build off that? the one in my mom's '08 Uplander does ok for something that's dragging around 5000 pounds of power sliding doors and built in dvd player... i've seen pages on teh internets where people have swapped them into engine bays that used to have 2.8 and 3.1 engines in them with good results...

I have a 3900/3.9L in the MIL's Impala. POFS. Weak power, have to baby it for 26mpg, and it loses/uses oil like I never tightened the drain plug. Should have sprung for the 5.3, if all of this E36 M3 was going to happen. I wold have gotten the same results and more power for more smiles per mile.

Blitzed306
Blitzed306 Reader
10/10/13 7:32 a.m.

I've never modded a 660, But I've owned two of them and the first went 234k without anything but reg maintenance, 2 transmissions, a water pump and radiator. Sold it. Saw it still on the road as of a few years ago. Second I still have as a back up car, 04 malibu with 140k on it. everything is OG except for the UIM and LIM gaskets. Extremely reliable engines in my experiance

Streetwiseguy
Streetwiseguy UberDork
10/10/13 7:51 a.m.

A good friend built one for his ice racer. Its built pretty hard, as in stuff that needs a Kinsler fuel injector to run it. He changes the crankchaft every couple of years, since he figured out that was the fuse in those engines.

singleslammer
singleslammer GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/10/13 7:51 a.m.

In reply to Ranger50:

That isn't really fair, calling it a POS when you have it in a GIANT car. I can't attest to the oil usage but the 3900 makes good power in a tiny package and 26 mpg in that barge is not bad at all.

Tom Suddard
Tom Suddard GRM+ Memberand Event Marketing
10/10/13 8:10 a.m.

Oooooooooh pick me!

I'm in the middle of assembling a 3.4 crate engine for the Trooper. Like this:

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/nal-12363230

Except I didn't pay that much.

It'll be replacing the stock 2.8, and in my opinion they're great engines.

Powerful? No. But they are good truck engines, and they survive hydrolocking quite well.

Ranger50
Ranger50 PowerDork
10/10/13 8:18 a.m.
singleslammer wrote: In reply to Ranger50: That isn't really fair, calling it a POS when you have it in a GIANT car. I can't attest to the oil usage but the 3900 makes good power in a tiny package and 26 mpg in that barge is not bad at all.

But it replaced a 98 Regal with a 3.8 SC that got the same mileage, less problems (even after two rearend collisions), and was better overall. Impala's aren't "GIANT", they might be if all you do is compare inches to inches, but overall fit for me and others riding, it's smaller then the Regal it replaced. It is still a POFS.

Storz
Storz Dork
10/10/13 10:00 a.m.

Whatever you do, stay away from the 3.6 "High Feature" GM V6 that came in the CTS etc. Worst engine I've ever in the 26 cars I've owned.

fidelity101
fidelity101 Dork
10/10/13 10:16 a.m.

what year rx7 and whats condition of engine and where are you located?

singleslammer
singleslammer GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/10/13 10:24 a.m.

Having owned a high feature in a newer Malibu, it isn't a badeng ine but the mpgs suck. My business partner has a g6 with a 3.5 he regularly gets 30+ on the highway.

wspohn
wspohn Reader
10/10/13 10:47 a.m.

I own 3 cars with the V6-60, if you count the wife's GM minivan with 3400 engine.

One is a Fiero engine that has been stroked and turboed to around 300 BHP. You need to do a few things with the heads on the cast iron versions to get anything approaching decent flow, and switching to ally heads can be a good move (note that just slapping them onto a cast iron bottom end gets you around 11.5 compression unless you change pistons too). The crank and rods are amply strong for that sort of application - I've been running the turbo Fiero for more than 20 years. More than about 7 psi boost and you best get some forged pistons though (I used some custom built Ross Racing items).

Harder to get significant power unboosted, but one of my projects is a rebodied MGA so weight is pretty low and I opted to run a 3.4 I reworked to about 200 BHP - still runs 87 octane, gets great mileage and has scads of grunt to move 2,000 lbs. around. Nice thing about the V6-60 is that it is compact and easy to swap, not that this will be an issue on the RX-7 judging by the Horsepower TV swap that used an LS1. Frankly, that might be a better avenue for you to consider, but if you really want to use the 3.4, go for it.

Picture of the 3.4 (with customized plenum) on the MGA-Jamaican

Toyman01
Toyman01 UltimaDork
10/10/13 11:10 a.m.
fidelity101 wrote: what year rx7 and whats condition of engine and where are you located?

83, 12a, ate a seal after clubbing it to death.

1 2 3
Our Preferred Partners
tfXxeCs7IrxCyjEDJPk10wfwAbEMjhimhc8dPor5mioT8Fww6fXJoCp57LM6qijO