Beretta.net

Your welcome Mike. So when are you going to get the ported manifolds?

I wouldn't run ported exhaust manifolds because it does nothing for flow, nor changing the crap design in any way. Go headers or 3500 exhaust manifolds. Gasket matching the exhaust ports on the heads hurts as well. I have a port mold of what that makes the port runner look like (not good). It goes against general porting methods to do it so why it gets done so often on DIY port jobs is beyond me.

Just turbo or s/c that bishh
Could probably get a while setup for $3-4k

Slinky wrote:Just turbo or s/c that bishh
Could probably get a while setup for $3-4k

Well gee, is that all? Some classes require an essentially stock (or stock-passable ) engine -that may be the case here. Either way, $3-4k, well, ouch. Not saying it isn't necessarily worth it, just saying that it wouldn't be worth it to most people, and it can be done for a LOT cheaper... Heck, I hate to , but if that is the cost of doing a good forced-induction setup on a 3X00, you just put one more 'plus' in my column for my 3800 SC build. I got a little crazy on that, and until I threw the six-speed into the car, I had less than a grand into it, including the car itself, and it was daily-driver reliable too...

I never was a fan of 3800, not sure why, but yes they create great power, although if you turbo a 3x00 to around 15-18psi than 10s are plausible

Slinky wrote:I never was a fan of 3800, not sure why, but yes they create great power, although if you turbo a 3x00 to around 15-18psi than 10s are plausible

I had no interest in the 3800 until one got abandoned with me -even then, I didn't like the size and weight until I started installing it and found that in many ways they actually fit our cars better than the 60-degree engines, and mine revs like it wants to spin the bearings free. But, starting with a 3X00 vs a 3800 and equal dollars ready to invest, it takes a lot of money before the 3X00 will beat-out the power-curve of a 3800, and torque is even harder for the smaller engine to match. Simply stated, there is no replacement for displacement... But you already know that, or you would have boosted your 3100...

Okay, so this isn't a 3800 vs 3X00 discussion, or a 3X00 vs the world thread. It is a what-can-I-do-to-get-more-out-of-my-3X00 thread. I am a fan of forced-induction, obviously, but that may not be an option in this case. Headers may not be acceptable either, or I would be on the band-wagon for them, too. Are the aluminum 3.4 GM Performance engines (think Indy Pace Cars -the actual ones) still around at all? They can be disguised as stock pretty easily, and give a significant weight savings... For $3-4k, that might be an avenue to explore...

WOTTECH wrote:I wouldn't run ported exhaust manifolds because it does nothing for flow, nor changing the crap design in any way. Go headers or 3500 exhaust manifolds. Gasket matching the exhaust ports on the heads hurts as well. I have a port mold of what that makes the port runner look like (not good). It goes against general porting methods to do it so why it gets done so often on DIY port jobs is beyond me.

Thank you for this post.

WOTTECH wrote: Gasket matching the exhaust ports on the heads hurts as well. I have a port mold of what that makes the port runner look like (not good). It goes against general porting methods to do it so why it gets done so often on DIY port jobs is beyond me.

Is this strictly regarding a gasket match, with no blending or additional supportive port work?

I know eyeballing it is not the best way to go about actually working into the port walls, but I ask because I've done my own mild port work (leaving the combustion chamber completely alone) and CCed them with my own home setup to make sure they were somewhat accurate.

Koots wrote: Is this strictly regarding a gasket match, with no blending or additional supportive port work?

No. Supportive port work doesn't exist to gasket matched exhaust ports either. You invite reversion, hurt velocity, and reduce flow if you open up the whole port or part of the port. There are only a few areas to improve exhaust flow on the gen 3 60V6.

I'm glad Ben chimed in on this... I was going to bring up something about the mods being mentioned but I'd rather have the man who does the best work out there laying down the info.

When I did my porting I listened to Ben's advice and my ports didn't change much at all... I took off the seams and then just polished the port itself... I don't dare remove any other material without knowing where to attack it.

The Intake side of things I did prior to talking to Ben and Dave and I did gasket match to the stock gaskets and I might have hurt some things but I just don't know... and its why I have a spare sets of 3500 heads an lower intakes I may send out another time.

Is the 3500 exhaust manifolds plug in play for the 3400..im assuming no?

WOTTECH wrote:

Koots wrote: Is this strictly regarding a gasket match, with no blending or additional supportive port work?

No. Supportive port work doesn't exist to gasket matched exhaust ports either. You invite reversion, hurt velocity, and reduce flow if you open up the whole port or part of the port. There are only a few areas to improve exhaust flow on the gen 3 60V6.

This amazes me. I've done only limited things with the 3X00 series so far as modding, and nothing nearly as sophisticated as some of the builders here do. I prefer the second-gen MPFI engines overall (although I would be blind to ignore the vast improvements offered by the third-gen engines, I just don't like some of the trade-offs, and they were more expensive and harder to come by back in the days when I first started planning things out for my own builds).

I know it is way off topic here, but how bad is gasket-matching on the older MPFI heads? I know there is a lot of room for improvement on the older heads, and greater limitations to them even with major mod work, but overall, gasket-matching (with proper supportive work) seems intuitively a good thing...

On my 3400-block 3.1 turbo MPFI top-end hybrid, even with little or no boost, the engine makes very respectable low and mid-range torque, and seems only somewhat limited in upper-RPM bands by the ported gen-2 splayed-valve heads... I am also running custom headers though, so I don't know how much difference there is with that added in.

WOTTECH wrote:

Koots wrote: Is this strictly regarding a gasket match, with no blending or additional supportive port work?

No. Supportive port work doesn't exist to gasket matched exhaust ports either. You invite reversion, hurt velocity, and reduce flow if you open up the whole port or part of the port. There are only a few areas to improve exhaust flow on the gen 3 60V6.

I was speaking in a more general term, in regards to port work on all sorts of engines.

Even saying gasket match, I never opened it up completely, as I was always told the story on reversion (same for the intake manifold). I guess it's just the terminology I got used to using. Sort of like people saying engines need "backpressure" for power, when it's exhaust gas velocity.

96B-Mike wrote:Is the 3500 exhaust manifolds plug in play for the 3400..im assuming no?

Bolts to the heads, but the rest of the routing is probably a little different. The vans got a wrap around style and the cars got a straight down front manifold and Y under the car.

Rettax3 wrote:

WOTTECH wrote:

Koots wrote: Is this strictly regarding a gasket match, with no blending or additional supportive port work?

No. Supportive port work doesn't exist to gasket matched exhaust ports either. You invite reversion, hurt velocity, and reduce flow if you open up the whole port or part of the port. There are only a few areas to improve exhaust flow on the gen 3 60V6.

This amazes me. I've done only limited things with the 3X00 series so far as modding, and nothing nearly as sophisticated as some of the builders here do. I prefer the second-gen MPFI engines overall (although I would be blind to ignore the vast improvements offered by the third-gen engines, I just don't like some of the trade-offs, and they were more expensive and harder to come by back in the days when I first started planning things out for my own builds).

I know it is way off topic here, but how bad is gasket-matching on the older MPFI heads? I know there is a lot of room for improvement on the older heads, and greater limitations to them even with major mod work, but overall, gasket-matching (with proper supportive work) seems intuitively a good thing...

On my 3400-block 3.1 turbo MPFI top-end hybrid, even with little or no boost, the engine makes very respectable low and mid-range torque, and seems only somewhat limited in upper-RPM bands by the ported gen-2 splayed-valve heads... I am also running custom headers though, so I don't know how much difference there is with that added in.

How much boost and fuel line pressure? I saw your other post in the 2.2/2.3/3.1 thread and you are basing everything on books, theory, etc. The gen 2 is only good for low and mid range. Mid range for it is 3-4k. 60V6s are good for 7k. Thats a lot left on the table in stock form, and even modified with headers and camshaft, the engine never makes good power to 6. Getting power to 5k was a serious accomplishment NA. Your turbo will move that powerband some but even if you hit 7k, its just much much lower output than a bone stock gen 3 top end. Gasket match all you want, it can't fix those intake manifolds. Extrude hone can't fix that manifold design.

Koots wrote:

WOTTECH wrote:

Koots wrote: Is this strictly regarding a gasket match, with no blending or additional supportive port work?

No. Supportive port work doesn't exist to gasket matched exhaust ports either. You invite reversion, hurt velocity, and reduce flow if you open up the whole port or part of the port. There are only a few areas to improve exhaust flow on the gen 3 60V6.

I was speaking in a more general term, in regards to port work on all sorts of engines.

Even saying gasket match, I never opened it up completely, as I was always told the story on reversion (same for the intake manifold). I guess it's just the terminology I got used to using. Sort of like people saying engines need "backpressure" for power, when it's exhaust gas velocity.

Reversion isn't really the same on the intake. You have sound waves and pressure waves on both sides, but the exhaust side has a much higher pressure, making its reversion stronger. This can also help suck the intake charge into the cylinder during valve overlap if the pulse tuning isn't forced exhaust back into the chamber/past the intake valve.

Ye Olde Scavenging Effect, the unsung hero of the 4 stroke engine

I spent a lot of time and work trying to eek out as much performance as I could out the 2.2L I was building, only to end up building towards a turbo.