9D1BURD

I just got creamed by a newer model blazer. I got him off the line till about 30. Then he pulled by me, i was starting to gain some ground again around 85, but then he pulled away for good. I know all the newer blazers are 4.3 liters and all, but i just wish my car could of held it's own!!! I am about to do a tuneup, what can i do during this tuneup to give me a little more kick. I am open to any suggestions. Money is not an issue to a point. Spending a few hundred bucks on it won't bother me the least. By the way it's a 91 firebird with a 3.1 liter.

Brian K

Dynomax cat back
4.10 Rear Gears

9D1BURD

it's also an automatic

Camaro_hunter_d

Sorry but most the newer 4.3's are close to 200 horses at minimum. and the Vortec's as you saw can walk away at just about any time from us.... Thats why I want to put a turboed version in my cam...

Jason E

195 to be exact, and the 0-60 is about 9 flat.

Bone stock, in showroom condition, you're at about 10 flat. Gonna need some bolt ons, a shift kit and gears to get you down to 9 or so.

------------------
Jason E

'89 Camaro RS
Medium Grey Metallic
2.8, A4, T-tops, 91k miles

'97 Z28 w/30th Anniversary package
LT1, M6, t-tops
White with orange stripes, killer system, 42k miles

Speed Kills...Wanna live forever? Drive a Ford.
Long Live #3...

KED85

Search the yards for a V-8 rear of 3:73 ratios.
Do a tune up, what ever ya wanna do, as it will only help, but, don't go over board.

Tranny work is next, so you can handle the power.
Best investment is the rear axle gears.
Really.
I run 3:42 with my 3.4 set up.
I am doing tranny work next.
Tomorrow actually. I've overpowered the tranny now.
I have rear gears, a strong engine, have to put it out.
Tranny.

------------------
Chat Soon,
KED85
Karl
1985 Firebird 2.8 to 3.4 swap project for Smog Happy LA, CA

Mikes86SC

Those suckers must be heavy!! My Grand Am is rated 170hp, 0-60 in about 8.

------------------
86 Sport Coupe, 2.8 V6, dead stock, but not for long!

Daily driver:
2000 Pontiac Grand Am SE2

"Little girls play with ponies!"
www.geocities.com/camman86

x55Cam

No flame intended but (assuming you have the 200R4) I find this hard to believe that a 200R4 is unable to take the torque of a beast 170hp 3.4L! How much power do you claim to have harnessed? I doubt with the mods that you have done to it so far it's able to bump the HP to near 200hp, if that. A performance shop in Ohio that specializes in the 60 degree did a dyno on a stock 3.4l and found the HP to be more like 140, so don't be fooled in thinking that the 3.4l puts out 170hp from the factory.

And besides, the 200R4 is used on the 3.8 TTA, isn't it?

OK KED85, what mods have you done?

9D1BURD

Thanks for replying guys, i think i will do a complete tuneup and maybe an exhaust change. Even though that blazer thumped me, my car looks way better cruising down the road. I can live with that!

9D1BURD

By the way, i will be posting pics soon so you guys can tell me what you think. It's about to go in the shop for some body repairs(girlfriend dorve it for the first time this winter,and needless to say it was not pretty)So i will give before and after pictures.

------------------
1991 Firebird
3.1 Liter
No Mods(yet)

x55Cam

KED85,

One thing I overlooked about your car, if it's an '85, the 82-84 years for the V6 trannies were in fact pretty inept. I think they were called THM-200. GM made drastic improvements to the 85-up for the V6 trans. If your trans is 4 speed it's a 200R4. The 700R4 is said to take as much as 375Hp stock and I have been told that the guts of 200R4 are the same. I have a Helms that I can check to confirm this if you would like.

SUPER-SPORT-CHEVY

Which 3.4 did they dyno? I bought a 3.4 performance engine from GM there was a slip inside the crate that stated something like a carbed 3.4 produeces 160hp and tbi 180.
Oh course I dosent feel much more powerful than the 2.8 but im curious anyway.
SSC

x55Cam

Super,

It was 1995 Camaro (or later) 3.4L SFI. Here's the link but I'm getting a bad gateway
error. Maybe the site is down?

http://www.norrisracingtech.com/

TomP

82-83 V6 f-bodies's got the THM-200C, the "metric" 3-speed. 84-92 f-bodies got the 700R4. The only f-body to get the 200-4R was the TTA.

The 200-4R and 700r4 guts are not interchangable, either... did you mean that they're basically the same? I don't think they're close.. i think the 200-4R uses more bands. The 700r4 uses one band for 2nd and 4th gear.

Stock, yeah, the 700r4 could take the 3.4. But add +17 years to a stock 700r4, and you need a rebuild.


------------------
-Tom P (Hot rodded 1986 Firebird 2.8l) from http://www.f-body.net/mailbag/3rd/3rd_mailbag.html message boards
---Think your car could be pic of the week? Visit http://www.f-body.net for details!

x55Cam

Tomp,

Good point about overhauling an old tranny. If KED85 does need one, though with 140-170 ponies I can't fathom beating that thing to the ground like a 305/350 would. I did some checking on the 200r4 guts and your're right that bands are not the same along with the input shaft. I know that all 700R4 trannies are not the same. At some point GM removed the pressure taps (89?). But, even in it's stock form it should handle a stock 3.4l with performance to spare.

TomP

Pressure taps? Where were those?

I know of a few design changes... like you said, 83-84 700r4's were the worst. I'm not sure what they did in '85, but they improved it. '87 got the bulk of the "increased durability" mods, like the different fluid pump and auxiliary valve body. I think '87 introduced the "new" accumulator piston design, too. But I'm clueless as to what happened after '87...


------------------
-Tom P (Hot rodded 1986 Firebird 2.8l) from http://www.f-body.net/mailbag/3rd/3rd_mailbag.html message boards
---Think your car could be pic of the week? Visit http://www.f-body.net for details!