lookin for the right engine

[jdhogg]

mornin guys,i already got a 4.3 in my 79 mgb,and yup she screams.but i just bought another mgb w/o an engine so im lookin for one.i reallydont wanna do another 90degree engine as its a ***** to shoe horn it in.so im thinkin about a 60 degree v6.the 2.8 i dont think wood hold up,what about the 3.4s,are the fairly tough?

[jjwalker]

The 3.4 is ok, cheaply, although the 2.8 is a high reving performer if you want to spend the $$.

[jdhogg]

well would a 2.8 with a stroker kit be any better?

[Sparky2263]

A 3.4 is a stroked and bored 2.8. Get the 3.4.

[jjwalker]

I am sorry sparky but I have to disagree. My arrangement would be, of course if money is no issue, A 3.4L with a 2.8 crank....yes there is a difference.

Due to large piston size and smaller stroke you will have very nice high RPM power with the right cam ( I keep up with 350's at high rpm). Do that and you are set for a while. Just be sure to get strengthened reciprocating parts so your motor can take the load. you can bypass the strong parts if you promise yourself not to go over 5500rpm.

Now irf money is a serious issue then go with the 3.4

[Sparky2263]

If you go short stroke, you confine yourself to high rpm's to make power. Remember, the only substitute for cubic inches is cubic dollars. We are comparing 2 60 deg., small cube, pushrod motors. It would be a mistake not to get as much displacement as possible.

JJ I'll guarantee you there's no 350 I've ever tuned you'll keep up with. No insult intended, but at half the cubic inches, you don't stand a chance.

[jjwalker]

No insult taken. I should have been more specific.

I meant stock 350's in the fullsize pickups of the same generation.

[Sparky2263]

Gotcha. Looking at your engine numbers, you should be around a mid to low 15 if those are rear wheel numbers. If they're engine numbers, then you're at about the same power level but with 500 lbs (min) less weight. That puts you .5-1.5 quicker in the 1/4 mile than a full size with a 350. They run mid to low 16's stock.

Oh, and the vaunted "Hemi" Dodge full size? Low 17's to mid 16's. What a joke.......

[j894]

Not to derail the topic
A buddy of mine got an '04 ram 1500, w/the "hemi", quad cab, auto, 4x4.
He brags abour how good it goes. If they only do a high 16 low 17, ya think I
can outrun him?

As you know i've got 5sp blazer 4x4. Think thats good for a 16.5 maybe?
I def. have a gearing advantage. Hope to get the pullies after I give it
a tune up.

[T Man]

Pulleys, exhaust, a little intake work and you would be able to walk him any day of the week.

[Sparky2263]

He's a 4x4? I'd say you'd take him provided you get good, quick shifts. Drain the fluid out of the tranny and put in GM's Syncromesh. Yeah, it's pricey, but it'll shift like greased lightning when you're done.

Should be a close but easy win.

[j894]

Been lookin to do that the pas week, but I cant break loose the fill/drain plugs,
I dont exactly have a massive 17mm allen to it properly either :( . Been tryin
to do it with a rigged bolt

[T Man]

I thought that the drain and fill plugs just took the head of a 3/8's socket?

[j894]

For the rear end maybe, but not the manual trannies

[T Man]

No drain plug on the rear end, and it is what you use on the fill plug. Every manual tranny ive drained and re filled took the 3/8's though. Hrmmm.......

[j894]

you know what I meant,

anyhow its 17mm, google it
or come here and look yourself!
lol

[KRUZER1]

He's a 4x4? I'd say you'd take him provided you get good, quick shifts. Drain the fluid out of the tranny and put in GM's Syncromesh. Yeah, it's pricey, but it'll shift like greased lightning when you're done.

Should be a close but easy win.

think the syncromesh would make a difference if ive already got performance clutch packs and shift kit?

[Sparky2263]

Synchromesh is a manual tranny gear oil. They should rename it greased lightning. It's that good.

The Snap-On part number for the 17MM socket head you need is CPT110A. Originally designed for VW plugs.

[jjwalker]

Sparks, those are engine numbers. I do think though it is a little more than 500lb difference...I could be wrong but when i was a state inspector I seem to recall more around the 800-1000lb difference....I could still be wrong.

Oh and j894....you can take him easily with slight work. His quad cab and 4x4 axles make him WAAAAY heavier than you.

I also agree with sparks about the HEMI. Domed chambers are so goofy when pent roofs offer a much more efficient chamber. You also cannot have 4 valves in a HEMI chamber which is also a limiting factor. HEMI, great in the day but now HEMI=outdated.

I am curious as to why american auto manufacturers are reluctant to use super efficient head designs like the japs do. Take a 4 valve pent roof head and put it on a v8 or even a v6 and you got some serious efficiency increase, less detonation, and better fuel economy. That is how these little 4cyls get their power (which isnt much ...but take a look at old 4cyl and their sheer LACK of power compared to now with efficient heads).

Anyway , sorry for the hijack but I needed to rant a little.

[T Man]

you know what I meant,

anyhow its 17mm, google it
or come here and look yourself!
lol

Thats how it always is "come here and look at it....and while you are under there, just go ahead and do the work for me" HELL NO!



Ha ha, goofy VW's, who would ever own one of those?

[jdhogg]

i ran against a couple of hemis with my 99 dakota,them hemis aint that quick,hell my 318 in my opinion is quicker and revs alot faster.but then it aint stock either.

[jdhogg]

what wood be the best engine for low and mid range power?

[Sparky2263]

A 7.3 diesel turbo.

;)

[T Man]

Ha ha ha. 6.6 Duramax