loominaz34 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I've been reading the the 3.4 dohc was originally supposed to make 275 to 280 HP. I know why the power was pulled out but I was wondering how. What do you do to an engine to kill off 80 or so horses without changing displacement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conley3.1 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Use cheeper parts Too bad the 4T60 couldn't handle 285 hp. Otherwise, goodbye SHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89oldscutlass Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I would say they dropped the compression by going to smaller valves, changed the cam and put a more restricted intake and exhaust system on it. In other words they detuned the crap out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I would say they dropped the compression by going to smaller valves, changed the cam and put a more restricted intake and exhaust system on it. In other words they detuned the crap out of it. Sounds like the same thing they did the last 4 times this was discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loominaz34 Posted July 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 So sorry. Hadnt a clue what to search under. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I think that 285 hp (as Aaron Lephart mentions on his site) is complete bullshit. GM slapped (cheaply) together a DOHC to try and chase after the SHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 They nixed the variable valve timing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tru2Chevy Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 they dropped the compression by going to smaller valves Exactly how does valve size affect compression? - Justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 What Shawn said. I've read they also cut some of the fuel and spark too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett8 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 i heard the 2 reasons that it was pulled back to 210 from 280 was becuase the transmission couldnt handle it and chevy thought it would look bad to have a v6 that would completely emberass the camaros and firebirds with V8's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excelsior Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 i think having a 6 that would completely embarass the hell out of the vette would be enough of a reason...the tranny couldve been beefed up had they so chosen....instead they got a SHO imitator.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOut Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I would tend to agree that the transmission excuse is complete bull. I mean it was only a a couple years later that the first supercharged 3800 Series I motors were introduced with beefed up 4T60's. It seems unlikely that they made some huge break through in technology in only one or two years that would allow the additional torque not to destroy the tranny. It seems much more likely that the engine was simply put together as an afterthought on a shoe string budget in order to play catch up to Ford. If the transmission story were true I also think that we would have seen a second generation of the engine that did in fact pump out 275hp once a transmission was developed that could handle the power. That didn't happen. Bad rap or not, GM doesn't toss its powertrains to the scap pile for no reason. Even the much reviled Quad 4 lives on as the Ecotech. So what gives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 I would tend to agree that the transmission excuse is complete bull. I mean it was only a a couple years later that the first supercharged 3800 Series I motors were introduced with beefed up 4T60's. It seems unlikely that they made some huge break through in technology in only one or two years that would allow the additional torque not to destroy the tranny. It seems much more likely that the engine was simply put together as an afterthought on a shoe string budget in order to play catch up to Ford. If the transmission story were true I also think that we would have seen a second generation of the engine that did in fact pump out 275hp once a transmission was developed that could handle the power. That didn't happen. Bad rap or not, GM doesn't toss its powertrains to the scap pile for no reason. Even the much reviled Quad 4 lives on as the Ecotech. So what gives? Werd. I think you've said it best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandPrix34 Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 CHECK IT OUT!! THIS QUOTE ABOUT THIS TOPIC COMES STRAIGHT FROM THIS USER!!!! old OLD OLD news and for you newbies, here's a thread I started ALONG time ago regarding this...don't post on it, just re-read wat was posted! http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6529&highlight= 7+ pages worth of thread so mods lock this one up! wonder who said that? Oh, wait, that was me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loominaz34 Posted July 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 THIS user must have missed THAT users post while THIS user was on vacation. As I said before, so sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandPrix34 Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 yeah, no offense or nothing man. Just after so many YEARS of hearing the same thing over and over again, one tends to accept the fact that we have what we have and thats all we have to work with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per0781 Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I agree, why talk about the same topic when there is a book of posts linked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z34_nut Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 well i kinda like reading up on it again and again, moslty cause new info sprouts up.... btw, i still don't beleive it, its kinda like when the silverado SS debued in 2002 at SEMA with 550 HP hahahahaha funny its all for show people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89oldscutlass Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Tru2Chevy wanted to know how bigger valves effect compression.Bigger valves on your heads allows more flow into and out of your heads which results in greater combustion raising the compression, why do you think people want the old 327 double hump heads? My guess is it is the big 2.02 valves.Dont believe me go to a machine shop or another mechanic ask them. You can also raise your compression by just having your heads shaved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 You can also raise your compression by just having your heads shaved. Kinda like mine were. Anyways, would it be possible to put larger valves into these heads, with ofcourse some money and time involved, and a good machine shop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89oldscutlass Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 I would say you could but its been a while since I have been into the 3.4 heads at work so I will have to call our machinest we use to ask him. Now as far as the 2.8,3.1 and the 3x00 I know you can Ill ask him how big of valves we can go to on them. Ive read on here about people having valve jobs done on their cars on here but none have said anything about putting bigger valves in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted July 20, 2004 Report Share Posted July 20, 2004 Yeah, mine has a 5 angle vavle job also(this car can move). I would be interested in larger valves though, that just might bring out some more power. BTW, what are the stock size valves allready(intake and exhaust)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.