3800Pro Forums banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK fer the fellow psychotic gearheads out there.... :D
on the rear 90 3800 LN3 engine in the twin engine 94 Olds Cutlass 442 (ordered the Jegs 10pt cage a few days ago... backorder)
has anyone tried to swap the later SII heads onto a LN3 vin C before?
They seem to have the same bolt pattern, but diff accesory mounts-no big deal there rear engine has crank, WP, alt, and tensioner only
the series II heads also having the factory roller rockers and smaller bolt retainers, better ports etc.

I see two things that have to be acounted for, the 90 LN3 block has a taller deck height which with using the series II Lwr intake manifold will require spacers, this is also an easy fix as I have acces to a bridgport mill and alum stock of varrying thickness' and tap for bolting to intake with paper gaskets and flush head screws.

the cam lifters are hydraulic roller for both engines but the series II has shorter pushrods for the lwr deck height, there is a possibility the stock LN3 pushrods will work but custom length pushrods arent too bad....

Now the 3800 WILL be getting Turbocharged at some point maybe this winter and get a MegaSquirt EFI setup (90 non PCM controlled trans....) and we have already swapped to the delco ignition. and there are plans for an intercooler.

I see several bennefits from doing something like this, factory roller rockers, less friction. symetrical, port and chamber design with bigger better flowing valves. and better exhaust manifolds for us toi turn into turbo headers.

not I have another idea that goes along with this, if I get the supercharged 3800 L67 heads with the injectors in the head and use the NA intake I can run 12 injectors that will help deliver the extra fuel required the MS EFI can be programmed for this (batch or new sequential) and delay/shutoff the second set of inj for better idle and proper mixture at WOT full boost. we have peak and hold (low impedance) type Quad 4 injectors that will flow 30lbs each at 50psi (boost refrenced/rising rate) and 12 would more than handle the fuel requirments

a fabricated Upper intake manifold is not out of the question with me, I have access to a TIG welder and have an alum mig so I can mockup and do final welding, and because there might just be a better TB / location and from the look of things I can make the roller rockers a different ratio with the bridgport and a 300 amp TIG welder.

Just curious if anyone knows if this has been try'd, Al and I's next run to the Upick a part I will be doing some "research" with a 90 LN3 and a 96 NA/SC, and if everything checks out we will be going home with the parts....

we are still looking for a front 3800 drivetrain but we have the rear 3800 to play with fer now... let me get some feedback...

Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
OK I know the I E valve arangment is a big killer of this idea, but if i can just do some lathe/millwork on a SII cam and fit it to the SI block as far as I have been able to tell they are very similar in dimentions and the balance shaft isnt neccesary if I end up using a SII cam gear...etc

anyone have any pics of SII vs SI cams.... I am going to the Jyard to check this stuff out, I should make sure to bring my camera, and share in the fun, besides I need to work on my J yard tan....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Coolant bosses from the block into the heads isnt a big deal... at least the SII isnt reverse flow and have differences like a reg sbc vs LT1/LS1

the valves arangment is different ie. the cam lobe timing events are tailered for the I-E-I-E-I-E valve positions of the SII and not the E-I-I-E-I-E of the LN3, this is one of the only things that I have found different between the cams (besides the sleeve bearings that got changed from roller bearings on the balance shaft, and I dont think that the balance shaft bearings changed anything with the cam bearings).
like I said we will be doing some research in a Jyard and comparing/measuring parts
Lowbuck redneck hotrodding lol
I am still planning on some stuff fer the 3800 when the turbo goes on, if the cam differences turn out to be more than a lathe and bridgport can work with, then Oh well but you never know till you try I am still determined to use the S I supercharged heads with their own inj ports and the NA (Series I) lwer intake with it's own inj ports, 12 inj will be possible and with MS EFI tunable....the rest is easy lol
a new fabricated uper intake with a TB (N* or Ls1 etc) located at an angle would improve IC plumbing....

the SII head gaskets would have to go with the SII heads on the SI block from the looks of em, I can compare the gaskets and see which works best with the block/heads

OK so there is no problem swapping the heads/intake from a SII onto a SI LN3 block, there will be spacers required for the intake (LN3 tall deck block). the 12 injector setup would be possible, the exhaust manifolds are no problem since Xover has to be modded for the turbo
the main hurdle is what are the differences between the SI cam and the SII cam on the cam journal sizes, and how it bolts to the cam gear
both are hyd roller cams and the blocks have the exact same lifter bore spacing

just need to find out fer sure on the SII cam if I can mod it to fit into the SI block
H*** the cams could be identical but with a different bolt/pin setup for the cam gear, in which cas a LN3 T cain set and a SII chain set will fix that problem lol

the SII heads have larger valves (that I can backcut and do 5 angle seat work on (I have a valve seat grinding machine) the SII heads will flow more than the SI and fully ported SI and SII heads will be that much better than the stock castings. pic of SII NA and SC heads....dont have any good shots of SI heads....

I already have all the neccesary tolls for porting and polishing, and have done full port/bowl/chamber work, backcut valves, ported intake and exhaust on the 90 LN3 3800 we installed into the rear of the 94 Olds Cutlass 442, the same mods have also been done to the 3100 V6 in the front engine bay.
being different is part of the goal but more power for cheap is the main goal, after all with a unique car like our twin engine 94 Olds 442 needs some unique V6's! we are looking to have twin 3800's in the front and the rear of the 442 and have both of them Turbocharged/IC if we can get 350 Hp from each 3800 thats 700 Hp with AWD! YEEEHHAAWWWW!

Here are some more pics for this thread...borrowed some photo's and have been talking with a few Holden guys from downunder and evidently the swap hasnt been tried/accomplished but people have talked about it but i guess no one got off their duffers and tried it, or at least went to a Jyard to do some testing/measuring lol.

and here are some pics of the SI and SII cams (the two on the right are the SII) and they seem to have the same length and lobe/journal spacing (the pics of each cam are from different positions) just with different lobe phasing, and maybe a different thread on the cam gear bolt, but the snouts look identical!


I am still reasearching this on the web but when I go to the Jyard we will know fer sure and I will be able to take measurements/dimentions of all the parts involved.

blazing new trails, REDNECK style! James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Bear with me this isnt done... yet...

OK fer the fellow psychotic gearheads out there....
The rear 90 3800 LN3 Vin C engine in our twin engine 94 Olds Cutlass 442 will be getting Turbocharged this winter and get a Mega Squirt EFI setup (90 non PCM controlled trans) and we have already swapped to the Delco ignition, there are plans for an intercooler to be plumbed into the mix to feed a TB located on the belt side of the engine for better plumbing.
One of my goals is to swap the SII cam, heads, intake onto the SI 3800, and have the specific modifications required to make this Hybrid, available to anyone else who might be interested in getting more power from their SI 3800.

All references to SI are taken from a 90 Vin C 3800 and all SII are in reference to a 95 Vin K 3800 engine, these may also correlate to other SI and SII engine years.

SI & SII 3800 differences/similarities: They seem to have the same bolt pattern on the ends of the heads, but different accessory mounts, this would allow the use of the SI accessory’s and belt drive with the SII heads. The 90 LN3 block (all SI) has a taller deck height which with using the series II Lower intake manifold will require spacers with the SII heads on the SI block. The different looking coolant bosses from the block into the heads is not a big deal, the head gaskets will still seal them... at least the SII V6 isn’t reverse flow and have the massive differences like the Gen I (regular) small block Chevy V8 vs. LT1/LS1 Gen II/III V8’s though more than a couple of people have put LT1 heads on the Gen I SBC with just a couple of modifications. Here is a side by side comparison of the SI and SII block surfaces.

The camshaft lifters are hydraulic roller for both engines but the series II has shorter pushrods for its lower deck height, there is a possibility the stock LN3 pushrods will work with the SII heads, but custom length pushrods are not expensive, if they are required. The valve arrangement is different between the SI and SII, i.e. the cam lobe timing events are tailored for the I-E-I-E-I-E valve positions of the SII and not the E-I-I-E-I-E of the LN3, this is one of the only things that I have found different between the cams. The other major change concerns the balance shaft bearings, the sleeve bearings (SII) that got changed from roller bearings (SI) on the balance shaft. The SI & SII cams have identical bearing journal spacing as well as the lobes, so they would line up correctly with the lifter bores. In one manual I found that there are differences in the SI and SII bearing journal diameters, but it also states that it is 97 and later SII that has the larger diameter, whether or not this is the case still remains to be seen.
Series I:
Camshaft Journal Diameter = 1.785-1.786 in
Bearing-to-Journal Clearance = 0.0005-0.0025 in
Series II:
Journal Diameter = 1.8462-1.8448 in
Bearing-to-Journal Clearance = 0.0016-0.0047 in

If this is the case, then it would require the early SII cam to slide into the SI cam bearings or the later SII cam would have to be chucked in a Lathe and cut the journals down and polish them to the correct diameter for proper bearing clearances. The other difference between the SI & SII cams is the snout and timing chain differences. The SI cam (in the 2 SI blocks I have looked at) uses a flange on the front of the cam to keep it from walking back in the block and uses a cam button on a spring to keep it from walking forward into the T chain cover. This pic is of a non balance shaft equipped SI.

The SII cam however (has no front flange and can slid back and forth no problem) slips into the block and has a flat retainer/thrust plate that bolts on with two flush head torx bolts, this keeps the cam from being able to walk forward in the block.

Then after the plate the balance shaft gear slips over the snout of the cam with the cam Timing chain gear going on right after and tightened with a single bolt, and with the Thrust plate behind the balance shaft gear/T chain gear this prevents the cam from walking backward in the block. And yes the SI and SII do have the same cam journal diameters if it's a 95 (and some/all 96?) SII blocks then the cam bearing part #'s change... to the larger ones....no wonder my manual said that the 97+ have the larger cam bearing journal diameters-and this is also shown by the 95 and 96 SII blocks using the same part # cam bearings as the SI blocks. The Cam specs are as follows for a 90 Vin C 3800 duration at .050 is 188 deg on the intake and 191 deg on the exhaust with the lobe separation angle of 114 degrees (no valve lift #’s found-yet). The 95 Vin K SII cam specs out at 180 deg intake and 191 degrees on the exhaust at .050, and the lobe separation of 115 degree’s, the SII cam also lists valve lift at .411/.408, on the intake/exhaust valves respectively.


The other difference that I can see is that the pushrods will have more of a tilt to them than the SI pushrods when the SII heads are placed on the SI block but this shouldn’t be a problem as plenty of engines have been designed with pushrods that are not directly in line with the axis of the lifter bore, the only side effect would be a little more thrust loading on the lifter to bore surface. Did you know the SI and SII use the same lifters? Same part #’s! The pushrods on the SI are 7.965 inches in overall length where the SII pushrods are 6.959 inches in length. This would seem to indicate that the shorter deck height is approx 1 inch on the SII block (presumably for a smaller engine package that will fit into smaller engine bays) but I have yet to verify this through specs or through measurements. This hybrid engine may still require custom length pushrods for proper lifter preload and valvetrain geometry

The SII exhaust manifolds would have to be used with the SII heads, however it seems possible that the SI tubular log manifolds can be cut and modified to fit the SII head, however with the plethora of aftermarket SII headers this wouldn’t be necessary, though the X-over pipe would be a little longer due to the SI blocks taller deck height. Here are pics of the SII front (cast) and rear (tube steel) exhaust manifolds.


SI front manifold made of tubular steel


The pistons in the SI are listed as having two 1.5 mm and one 3 mm ring grooves with a 1.377 compression height rated at 8.5 to 1 Compression ratio with a dish of .260 inch deep x 3.050 inches in diameter. The SII pistons spec out as having, one 1.2 mm, one 1.5 mm, and one 2 mm ring grooves, with a 1.090 inch compression height and having a dish of .050 inch deep x 2.9 inch diameter.

Now for the cylinder heads, the primary difference between the SI and SII heads are the intake and exhaust valve and port locations/order, with the SI head having a EIIEIE arrangement and the SII having a “symmetrical port” design of IEIEIE, these differences are why the Camshaft from the SII must be used as it has the correct lobe phasing/order. Now besides the fact that the SII heads have much better engineering of the port design and excellent crossectional area/flow the SII heads feature 1.8 and 1.52 inch intake and exhaust valves, and they measure 4.7212/4.7133 inches overall length on the intake and exhaust respectively. While the SI heads have 1.71 and 1.487 inch diameter intake and exhaust valves, and measure 4.727 inches overall length each. I have yet to determine the SI and SII combustion chamber volume but the differences in the dishes of the pistons would lead me to believe that there is a possibility that the SII heads have a slightly larger chamber than the SI heads, but this has yet to be verified by me. Also the SII roller rockers are lighter than the L27 roller rockers, just by handling them. From the look of things I can make the roller rockers a different ratio with the Bridgeport and a 300 amp TIG welder, here is a side by side pic of the SII and the SI rockers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
From the looks of things the Timing chain from the SII will work with the SI block as they use the same chain tensioner part # between the SI and SII setup, however you cannot use the SI chain with the SII cam gear because the spacing (pitch) of the teeth are different and will not work. This should not pose a problem since the SII timing chain crank sprocket will fit on the SI crank snout; however one of the things I have to check is whether the splines on it are the same as the SI splines that drive the oil pump that is in the Timing chain cover, but I would think that they wouldn’t have changed, and if they did then you would also require the SII sun gear (and maybe the ring gear) of the gerotor type oil pump.

I think that covers most of the differences and/or similarities.

Now for what I am trying to accomplish with this Hybrid project on our 90 Vin C 3800 in the rear of the twin engine Olds 442:
I am looking to swap the SII L67 heads with the injector bosses in the heads (this means that yes, you can put a L67 supercharged top end onto a SI block-with the L67 intake- SI guys can say goodbye to the M62.....HELLO M90!) with a modified factory fuel rail. Along with the L36 NA lower intake manifold (with spacers…) with it’s 6 injector bosses and modified factory fuel rails, so that we can run 12 30lb hr injectors at 50 psi with a boost referenced pressure regulator (Quad 4 injectors-free from J yards….) with the Mega Squirt DIY EFI system controlling them with custom fuel tables for the Mitsubishi TD06-17c-8cm^2 Turbocharger from a 4.3L Cyclone/Typhoon, this Turbocharger is capable of enough flow to support 400Hp which would require ~ 60 lb hr injector per cylinder, it’s much cheaper for us to use two 30 lb hr injectors. The L36 NA lower intake would receive bell mouthing of the intake runners, and we would Fabricate a sheet metal aluminum Upper intake plenum that would have a N* or LS1 TB located on the belt drive side of the engine to allow for better plumbing of the Turbocharger to Intercooler to TB ductwork without any flow robbing bends. There is no big deal with this as our rear engine has crank, WP, alt, and tensioner only and wouldn’t interfere with the TB. Mega Squirt EFI will work with MAF or MAP based EFI setups but I think we will go with a 3 bar MAP sensor and use speed density tables and forgo the LS1 MAF etc and its associated cost, though it’s not out of the question. The SII exhaust manifolds will be used with the rear manifolds normal outlet removed and the crossover pipe that is (now) too short will be cut in half to facilitate the fabrication of the Turbocharger mount/flange.
Besides the benefits of factory SII parts on the SI block you can then use the aftermarket SII performance parts, an IC under a L67 supercharger etc you name it…the possibilities would be endless, at least it’s possible.

Modifications required:

Here is a pic of the SII cam gear, balance shaft gear, and the thrust plate, from left to right. The balance shaft gears are identical between the SI and SII tooth pattern wise so you can still keep your SI balance shaft and the SII cam gears will mesh perfectly. Here is a pick of the SI and SII balance shaft gears-identical

The thrust plate on the far right is the part that will have to be centered over the cam hole and the two small torx flush head screw holes will need to be center punched, drilled ~5/16 of an inch deep and tapped for the thread of the bolts...this looks like the hardest part of the whole swap.

But I still have some measuring to do in the Junkyard I have to compare the SI crank sprocket (timing chain) to the SII one and make sure that both have the same oil pump drive splines, as in this picture of the SII crank sprocket which has the same crank snout diameter as the SI. However you cannot use the SI crank sprocket with SII cam sprocket and or chain because of the differences in the tooth pitch of the SI and SII timing chains.

So far it looks like all we have to do is drill and tap two holes in the front of the SI and use the SII cam thrust plate....with a SII T chain set... here you can see the difference between the SII and SI cam gear tooth pitch, the SII gear is on the top.


Now, bolting the Lower L36 or L67 intake on the hybrid, as the intake bolts are perpendicular to the intake port surfaces all that you need are longer bolts to account for the spacers thickness. The Spacers can be cut from Aluminum stock of the correct thickness with a plasma cutter and milled with the correct size coolant and intake port patterns with the intake bolt holes drilled into it, this is also an easy task as I have access to a Bridgeport mill and alum stock of varying thicknesses. Then the spacers need to be bolted to the intake and a few more small holes drilled and the spacer needs to be countersunk for flush head screws to hold the spacers to the Intake with just a paper gasket material between them then tap the small holes for the correct thread that your flush head bolts have and bolt the spacers to the intake. Then you would just use the factory SII intake gaskets between the intake (and its spacers) and the heads, and fasten it down with the longer intake bolts. The spacers would be cut to the same shape etc as the intake port flange such as the L36 Lower intake in this pic of the Lower intake with the intake gasket on it, you could basically copy the intake gasket.


You may be able to use the stock SI pushrods if they will work but if not a pair of adjustable checking pushrods can be used to determine the correct length and purchase new custom length pushrods from Manley/Comp Cams etc. A pair of checking pushrods is 25$ and a set of high end custom pushrods goes for 80-100$ for a V8 and you don’t need that many except for maybe spares…

The Upper intake (L36) or supercharger (L67) would bolt right onto the Lower intake with no changes however the supercharged fuel rail will need to be fit for the wider head spacing of the taller block. And the belt routing will need some work but would seem to be a possibility that it would work with a SI or SII accessory/belt system no problem, but as I am not attempting this I cannot say for sure…

Why the hell am I doing this instead of swapping in an L67:

Lowbuck Redneck Modern Hotrodding! We is Rednecks, we is cheap! We already have the 3800 SI drive train in the rear of the 442 and since we are going to be Turbocharging it we will be running MS EFI, as the trans isn’t computer controlled the MS system will work so we don’t have to spend tons of $$ to get a custom PCM/ECM, and because I can tune the MS to run it just fine-even with 12 injectors using peak and hold drivers for the low impedance Quad4 injectors. It is well worth spending a day at the J yard tearing down a couple engines to check/compare dimensions and feasibility of the swap. I have the time and the energy as well as the tools to try this out for nothing, it will just be a little investment of time, if it doesn’t work because of massive cam differences (doesn’t seem likely...) at least someone will have taken time to prove it's not possible and document the proceedings. But like Gearheads of old who put a blower from a diesel on their V8’s or swapped Flathead fords into T bucket roadsters, blazing new trails, I am doing it for the fun and challenge, and of course to go faster!
.
We are trying this because for the price of a set of SI roller rockers we can put the SII heads with factory roller rockers, and it's better flowing ports and larger valves, and the lower NA intake on with machined spacers, and fabricate an upper plenum that would allow use of a N* TB or equivalent. Along with the SII exhaust manifolds and fabricate the crossover for the turbo flange, ourselves saving $, who can argue with that?

You can do anything with a Plasma cutter, welder, Bridgeport mill, and lathe…
Case in point…Twin engine 94 Olds Cutlass 442 New Pic of the rear engine…


More to come…stay tuned….
Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
well it looks like it will be easier to modify the SII cam (redneck wise) and get it to work than just changing 4 lobes on the SI cam (cast iron-4 lobes are out of phase)
the SII billet steel would be easily (fairly) made to work by welding alongside the lobes that need to be "Moved" over to line up with the SI block lifter bore spacing pattern, and then using a simple follower jig with a belt sander/grinder grind the extension to the same pattern as the original next to it, polish it and grind away the old (original) portion of the lobe to maintain lobe to adjacent lifter clearance....
and this cam can easily be made into an aftermarket billet steel camshaft with any custom lobe profile you desire...we may eventually get one but fer now...it's Lowbuck :lol:


annnnd.... the lifters are identical in every way...and look very similar to the sbc/ or 3x00 seried hydraulic roller cam engines (will hopefully confirm... and there may be a factory lifter out there with a larger roller that can handle a faster opening lobe ramp)

I may have to use the SI timing shain but that isnt an issue at this point (i believe that the cam/crank centerline measurments are identical (well i could have been .010 off) :lol:
i could use either...but i wil be deleting the balance shaft in the lifter valley (block oil holes) and will be cutting down the balance shaft gear to just a spacer...if you notice there are thickness differences in the SI vs SII timing compnents...they are different but stacking the parts together SI and SII components are the same thickness....as a unit...the SII chain and gears have a smaller tooth pitch pattern but share a nearly identical Tchain tensioner...

the cam retainer plates are the same thickness and opening diameter, just different bolt pattern...no problem there

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

and here is the SII crank gear (didnt have the SI on me) besides the smaller tooth pitch it is identical to the SI unit...however the SII drives the oil pump by 6 splines as opposed the the SI's two flats design...this is irelevant as the pump assemblys and Timing chain covers are nearly identical...just swap the pumps from the SII cover to the SI T chain cover....


i was talking to my buddy down under, (Locksmiff on Streetcommodores.com,) who started a seperate tech site for holden commodores....but too the case at hand...

I have some pics of the SII stuff mocked up on his Holden SI (same as ours but has different intakes and exhaust (they got RWD but not quite the same stuff as the F body 3800 stuff...)

here are the SII heads on the SI block...

The cover over the balance shaft kinda hides the lifter bores but here is a valley view (btw i have never seen that blance shaft cover on an american engine...we think this is because of the high temps of the Au market...keep oil from coking on the underside of the intake)

And the money shot...here is the SII Holden intake bolted to the head...you can see the 1 inch gap that would have to be filled with spacers...or the SII intake widened...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
and here are a couple of shots of the holden SII upper and lower intake manifold...similar to the F body setup but not quite...



now if you look at the lower holden intake it might be easy to cut it in half down the middle and widen it (cut zigzag between the runners and straight down the middle on the bottom) and then weld in filler for the coolant "T" and just fabricate a sheetmetal common plenum for the top...
alteernatly we have been talking about just making a custom (sheet aluminum) lower intake as a tunnel ram...which would be great for a NA engine but on our turbocharged setup ahort runners would work just as well...

I hope to get my own SII heads here soon so that i can start mocking up pushrod angles etc...but the heads bolt on nooo problem :D

the SII cover on the left and the SI cover is on the right...essentially the covers are the same but Al's fingers are pointing to the major difference...the SII cover has one bolt hole deleted and the other moved...

by now you have rfigured that the cleaner piece is the SII cover...the filthy one the SI unit...here are the two oil filter mount units...both are interchangable between covers (W body unit on the filthy SI cover.)

here is a side by side view of the SII and SI covers near the oil filter adapter mountings here also you can see the (minor) differences between the two units

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
here are the fronts of the covers...you can see that the cam sensors are in the same spots as well as the small differences between the two water pumps...and the same mounting points for the crank sensors between the two covers.

Here you can see the identical oil pump assemblies...the SI cover pump driven by two flats on the crank gear...and the SII unit driven by 6 splines, the pumps are identical otherwise...

here is a crappy shot of the SII deck height measurment/timing chain area

and here is Al in front of the 442 and his V8 S10

and a quick shot of the drivers cockpit

and here is the empty engine compartment of the (formerly) 4wd S10 Blazer...That is getting a 400cid SBC :twisted:



well i hope that gives ya'll some more stuff to chew on....:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
OK i get this alot from people...(no it doesn't piss me off..we are all here to learn/make power...)

OK as i have established...the SI/SII blocks are nearly identical...small differences being a few accessory bolt boss's...and the 2 bolt vs 4 bolt mains (no the SI two bolt mains are not weak...remember plenty of factory buick 3.8 GN's have run well over 900Hp on a factory 2bolt shortblock)
and i like to point out that because the SI block has a tall deck height...the front and rear main block bulkheads are taller and seem to be slightly thicker making for a stronger block (torsionally)
the big difference is also the MOST Beneficial
the SI shortblock has a 1 inch taller deck height! as well as correspondingly longer connecting rods which gives the engine mechanicals a better rod/stroke ratio (less thrust loading on the cylinder walls,) as well as a noticable improvement in TDC dwell

going farther into this...with the SI tall deck block..you can get short compression height pistons (as far as narrowing the ringpack to an acceptable amount using narrow/low friction rings) and get a set of aftermarket conecting rods that (as well as being stronger than the SI/SII factory rods...) can now be even longer further improving Rod/Stroke ratio...
also take this into account...when stroking an engine (ANY engine) a tall deck block is better....as the rods length will still yeild an acceptable rod/stroke ratio as oposed to the SII short deck block...

all in all what i am trying to accomplish is to use factory parts to make a (More) mechanically efficient engine
a SI shortblock, with the larger valve/symetrical port SII heads on it...
and since the biggest snarl seems to be the need for the modified camshaft...people will also at the same time be able to put a nicer camshaft in (from 150-300$) the engine to make even more power...

doing it all for the same reason i would take a 10.200 inch tall deck BBC over a 9.800 inch factory deck height BBC...
better in more ways than one...

basically the Buick 3.8L V6 that borrowed heavily from the buick V8, in all of its oddfire, evenfire, DIS changes and the rest of its evolution from a RWD platform engine to the FWD platform, its evolution as a short block, I believe, peaked at the tall deck SI 3800...it is in all ways a better shortblock when you consider the benifits (when the 3800 FWD's get into the 8's and start for the 7's i bet youll see alot more stroker 3800's and the SI block is much better suited... and it can still be machined for 4 bolt caps if desired

while i believe the block design peaked in the SI engines, the SII/SII 3800's recieved much better flowing heads...MUCH better in many ways...valve size, combustion chamber design, port design...

so i would like to put these heads on the SI block....and make her run...
that in its simplicity is the reason why i am doing this...(that and everyone thinks its not worth it, a challenge i cannot deny :D )

now ya dig?:cool:

Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
and yet, with a heavier car, with 231 Cubes to your 425 cubes, with only FWD and much worse 60' times, i ran a 13.74 @ 101.74 (2.121 60'). Also, i think my crank HP is less than your combined crank HP

FWI i have about about 2500$ invested in power mods, 500 invested in suspension mods, 300 invested in tires. Did not have the suspension or tires for my PB runs, didnt have any time left to make a run with the new tires or suspension.

soooooooooo, i know you built yours on a budget of like nothing, but all the work you're putting into it, it just seems to me you could have started with some better engines...

i mean, acouple l67's, pulleies, open exhaust like you have, your car should easily be running low 12's if not into the 11's . add cams , RR's , headers, some heads or something that thing would be turning single didgets NoProblem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
r0b0t c0rpse said:
and yet, with a heavier car, with 231 Cubes to your 425 cubes, with only FWD and much worse 60' times, i ran a 13.74 @ 101.74 (2.121 60'). Also, i think my crank HP is less than your combined crank HP
4330 lb 442, ran 13.81 at 98.2 mph in 96+ heat with 60% humidity...and that version of our rear engine throttle cable, never brought the engine very far past 90% throttle
soooo... 4330 lb car with 425 cid 10.18 lbs per ci
(dont know what your car weighed in at at the track with your 1/4 time) but say a 04 GTP (just did a quick search)
3680lbs with 231 ci = 15.93 lbs per cubic inch...now if the GTP were Naturally aspirated the two vehciles would be more comparable...
(wish i knew more about your car man...sorry i could make a better comparison)

now as fer crank HP...our total crank power (factory figures) the 3100 was rated at 160 Hp, the 90 Ln3 was also rated at 160...but it has more Tq (and a flatter Tq curve than the 3100)
so basically we are pushing close to 320 TOTAL crank Hp
4330lbs with 320 Hp 13.53 lbs per Hp

Ok now an 04 GTP factory rated at 240 Hp
3680 lbs with 240Hp = 15.3333lbs per Hp
now take the same engine and hop it up a bit...say 300 crank Hp
3680lbs with 320Hp = 11.50 lbs per Hp

Now see why your car was faster? hmmm but we are using two essentially stock NA engines to turn a 16.9s (stock) car into a 13.81 toy :D

now lets do some theoretical math....;)
04 GTP 3680 lbs with 600 crank Hp = 6.13 lbs per Hp...

now a 94 Olds 442...4330lbs 600 Hp (total) = 7.21

now even crazier...
04 GTP 3680 lbs with 900 crank Hp = 4.088 lbs per Hp
442 4330 lbs with 900 total crank Hp = 4.811 lbs per Hp
closes the gap quickly doesnt it?

now lets go totally nuts...
04 GTP, with everything but the kitchen sink
3000 lbs at 900 crank Hp = 3.333 lbs per Hp

Twin engine 442 (we'll keep our weight the same;) )
4330 lbs with 1800 (total:D ) crank Hp = 2.4 lbs per Hp

r0b0t c0rpse said:
FWI i have about about 2500$ invested in power mods, 500 invested in suspension mods, 300 invested in tires. Did not have the suspension or tires for my PB runs, didnt have any time left to make a run with the new tires or suspension.
we spent a little over 3500$ (so far as of our best 1320 times) we chopped over 3 seconds off the cars 1/4 mile time, suspension mods were a set of factory replacement struts with factory Cutlass rims on 225 street rubber

now if you had spent your 2500$, made the car heavier but still went 2.21 seconds faster than the stock times...i bet you'd be happier with those mods ;)

r0b0t c0rpse said:
soooooooooo, i know you built yours on a budget of like nothing, but all the work you're putting into it, it just seems to me you could have started with some better engines...
yes we would LOVE to have two LS4 drivetrains and harness's computers etc to make the 442...we all would...
i bet you would get rid of your car if you could afford a Z06
and we have started with a better engine...the corporate GM 3800 V6
which is readily modded with aftermarket parts, and when finished the SI shortblock/SII topend 3800 will be the best of both worlds and every bit just as unique as the 442 is..."Son of Hairy" Hurst Olds remember...everything about it was unique.

r0b0t c0rpse said:
i mean, acouple l67's, pulleies, open exhaust like you have, your car should easily be running low 12's if not into the 11's . add cams , RR's , headers, some heads or something that thing would be turning single didgets NoProblem.
the math above proves this point...but where does it say they have to be L67's? I would like to get around 500-600 Hp reliably with both Hybrid 3800's each with a Turbocharger...
it woud be a 1000-1200 Hp beast with 4WD...though heavy...we wont have to worry (as much) about whether a single transaxle can live with 1200 Hp repeatably each of ours could live quite nicely with half that (if we blow them up, we go to 4t65's)

if money were no issue then that statement would be moot
but remember all things being equall between two 3800's (one tall deck/long rod and the other a SII short deck/short rod) the tall deck engine will make more power...more reliably
and the differences grow dramatically when both of them are stroked to 4.2L

hope this clarifies why i am soooo crazy:D to be doing this

Lowbuck/Redneck Hotroddin

Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
;) ur crazy. i have a regal anyway lol

;)

and if i had enough money for a z06, i still prolly wouldnt buy it! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
r0b0t c0rpse said:
;) ur crazy.
Yes we are! :D

r0b0t c0rpse said:
i have a regal anyway lol

;)

and if i had enough money for a z06, i still prolly wouldnt buy it! ;)
your right i wouldnt either....I would get an 06 MC LS4...and put another LS4 drivetrain in the back....:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
sux i cant change the title of this to SI (EV6) tall deck block with SII heads

please? hint hint

i honestly cant belive no one has done this before...there is no way that some GM tech/engineer hasent figured out that you could put the SII heads on the tall deck/long rod block with a custom cam and intake spacers...oh and lengthening the exhaust manifold crosover pipe...

still this is a much more mechanically efficient engine...1 inch Taller deck height ~5/8th inch longer rods, better rod/stroke ratio with the much better engineered/flowing SII factory large valve/symetrical port/heart shaped combustion chamber heads....especially if your considering a 4.2L stroker kit

ask and ye shale recieve...i have 58 new pics....

Just a tease....fer now ...these are the hot ones


:cool:


10 pic flash strip of SI tall deck/long rod block/pushrods with SII DE larger valve/symetrical port heads




my sub album with 58 pics...still working on my writup on this update...

James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #17

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
so far the longblock looks like all it needs:
is the ~13mm (1/2 inch) phenolic or alum intake port spacers (and the end oil seals will need spacers) phenolic would def be better :cool:

a custom grind camshaft SI bearing journal diameter and SI lifter bore spacing but with the SII lobe phasing...and since most with a tall deck stroker/turbo high performance engine would want a custom cam to get the most out of the engine this is a very minor cost (~250-350 USD dep on lobe pattern)

4 pushrods approx ~.010-.020 longer than stock SI pushrods for the higher angle pushrods (for proper lifter preload), which clear the head casting just fine after just a hair over 1mm was ground away from the outer edge of the port wall (see in pics below)

you will have to use wither the SI or SII balance shaft gear/Timing chain, Cam and crank gears on the SI crank/block, the cam retainer plates are identical thickness (3 bolts in SI only 2 in SII) and the cam snouts are the same, just different journnal diameters.
One thing to make clear, if if your deleting the balance shaft, or not, you have to use the SII cam gear with the SII balance shaft drive gear as the cam gear and balance shaft gear from either set are the same thickness you cannot mix the SI cam gear with the SII balance shaft drive gear or vis-a-ersa as they with be thicker/thinner than the required thickness.

also if your using the better smaller pitch SII Tchain/balance shaft gear, cam gear, crank gear you will have to install the SII oil pump into the SI cover (the drive arangment between the oil pump in the cover and the Tchain crank gears are different from SI to the SII.

accesory brackets look like you will be able to use all of the SI brackets with the SII heads with some minor customizing (and making a few parts "factory optional" :D )

Here the 2000 SII head is bolted onto the SI EV6 block...those symetrical ports look right at home dont they...

Here is a 3/4 view:


And here are the SI pushrods installed center two are at 0 degree's and the outboard 4 pushrods are at slight inward angles, the ones on the ends are at ~ 1.5-2 degree's and the ones inboard of the ends are at ~3.5 degree's and just slightly graze the edges of the intake port casting. This neccesitates grinding just a hair over 1mm from the outter port wall.
Lifter guide left off for clarity:
In this pic my buddy Donald is pointing to the two outter pushrods which are at the ~1.5-2 degree angle

here he is pointing to the pushrods that are at ~ 3.5-4 degree's and that hit the outer port casting, this was fixed by removing just a bit over 1mm of metal about 1 cm tall from the outer port wall...


and the rods are next the SI rod being a longer rod by ~5/8ths of an inch (I have seen specs saying its .64 inches shorter) but i have to pull the pistons off the rods for more comparison. the SI rod has a thicker main beam and also has more material around the big end capscrew locations, besides being equipped with a larger dia piston wrist pin, this could be bushed to work for a floating pin application and probably use the SII wrist pin diameter. Also note where the SI piston also has a tall compression height that if the SII piston were put into a SI block you would be able to get the rod even longer by ~1/4 inch of an inch for an even better rod/stroke ratio

so if you used the SII piston (or an aftermarket) with the SI rod in a SI shortblock you could throw in a ~3.6 inch stroker crank and have all factory components without custom length rods etc.




Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
OK i admit it I goofed...when measuring the intake manifold spacer thickness...i set the intake on the block...the real thickness (surface to surface) is ~ 1 5/32's inches!!! the end oil seals would have to be 1 inch (redid my math and this is fer sure since the head's are now 1 inch higher due to the tall deck block)

i cant wait fer you to see the pics of how high the intake sits!

sooo i have to make some reaallly thick intake spacers or i just go ahead and section the L36 LIM into two port flanges, run my own coolant hose path's and weld a plate down the center for the new "Floor" of the intake plenum, now this may be the best way to go about this, though i would loose the benifite of over 1 inch phenolic spacers, going over 1/2 inch thickness with that stuff gets expensive reallly quick, and i can get 1/4 inch alumin sheet and TIG it fer less than that fer sure, my labor comes cheap to me ;)

the other thing i noted other than the UIM being really tall with the spacer method is thet the bolt holes in the LIM would have to be slotted because of the bolt angle to the head face. this problem goes away if i just fabricate a wider LIM using as much of the factory unit as i can (but believe me i would run external coolant lines, that would seriously reduce LIM temps in and of itself)

I have a crapload of pics of my mockups with SI brackets and SII brackets...guess what other than some tomfoolery with coolant routing (aka the SII alternator bracket vs the SI) almost all the brackets interchange...and the 00 impalla L36 alternator/tensioner bracket bolted onto teh head shows that the tensioner pulley lines up perfectly with the SI T chain cover Water pump pulley...so belt routing may not be as bad as i think.

I would appreciate pics of any of your cars that are similar to these makes/models 00 impalla L36, 00 L67 (W and H bodies) and 93 regal's 3800 SI, so that i may see what brackets would be the best, as far as the compressor, alternator, P/S mounting brackets as well as the belt routings, i will be looking in Mitchell OnDemand when i get to work but usable pics would be appreciated.

Wait till ya'll see the new High res pics (soon!)

Regards, James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Right now i am trying to locate a factory rod (from another application) to allow the use of SII short compression height pistons with a rod longer than the factory SI/EV6 i havent gotten an exact measurement but the SI rod is dam near 5.9 inches c to c and using the SI piston means i need to find a factory rod ~ 6.1-6.15 in length

SII guys only wish they could fit a rod that long in a short deck...

on this same note a SI guy could get a crank with a larger stroke while using the factory SI rod with a factory or forged aftermarket SII piston, cheap stroker...

well onto the pics...
this is the SI/SII Hybrid (by now ya'll know i'm talking about the EV6/Ecotec) the end gaps under the intake is 1 inch, the sides are approx 1 5/32 inches

awww yeah SII alternator bracket, SI front lower mount, with SI cover and pump, pulley's all line up all good there.

a high res view of the cylinder bore/head alignment, anyone ever scribe the heads with the bore, my one head needs a .010 ofset pin to move it up, but i want to check more.

nice view of the pushrods...

here's the two coolant ports...these will play into my work on a custom fabb'd intake manifold, i will section out the middle and weld in aluminum to widen it as well as i am looking into external plumbing for the cooling system...i am wanting to see how dificult it would be to make it a reverse flow system, sending the cool coolant straight to the heads and then into the block to prevent hot spots.

Yup it's def an EV6 with symetrical port heads...
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top