Welcome to the 3.0 section! New 3.0 Home.

[Ondonti]

I will be posting helpful 3.0 things and participating in 3.0 discussion when I can as long as this is the 3.0 section and not something else. :love: 3.0:love:
I will be a little nicer too. :peace:
I will also become a paying member later this year if someone reminds me. I really can't spend too much time on cars right now and my current project is 90% because I need my daily to driver able go daily again.
I need to show support for anyone willing to give the 3.0 an ear and waste space on their site for all these years when I didn't even support the section (decision I made in the past).
Today I am an Egyptian.

I don't know if anyone will post here but I will do my best to make the section a money maker for the site. Hope I don't get stabbed in the back 2.0 with no apology after making someone a bunch of money and asking for nothing in return.
Working at Boeing right now and I have a lot of responsibilities away from work that mean I shouldn't be posting to begin with.

The day I cannot speak out in defense of my passion is the day I am gone. I don't see that happening here because I didn't support this site at the time and the staff here still listened to my complaints and made the 3.0 section back into the 3.0 section years ago.

[inplansight]

:feedtroll:

Will you be giving instructions on one time use boat anchors ?

Paul B

[Ondonti]

:feedtroll:

Will you be giving instructions on one time use boat anchors ?

Paul B
I stick to what I have done before.

[BadAssPerformance]

Brent, We welcome your input here, you are definitely pushing the 3.0L tech! :thumb: :clap:

Everyone - No need for 3.0L hate here, a TON of our beloved Dodges came from the factory with them and Chrysler did own quite a bit of Mitsu at that time as well.

[Vigo]

Im on board with this. I think one of the things that would REALLY help push the 3.0 users forward is being able to get a cal with decent fueling and timing for bolt-on cars. There are plenty of people here who can help with that.

[bakes]

Thanks Brent and i can wait to see were it takes us !
And mabey we will get a proper Cals made .

[turbovanman²]

What happened, TD kicked you out? Wife b8tch slapped you into submission? Your kid pissed in your cornflakes?

[dodgeshadowchik]

That's because this site is cool. :)

[turbovanman²]

That's because this site is cool. :)

That's a given, no need to even mention that, :p

[Vigo]

3.3/3.8 hatred has driven him here! hehe. Actually stupid moderating at TD is more like it. Who'da thunk....... :p

[cordes]

I look forward to reading about the projects and tech in this section. I've been impressed with the innovativeness of the V6 guys so far. Keep it up.

[Aries_Turbo]

ive had a few 3.0L vehicles, ill always be for 3.0L fun stuff. :)

still slowly working on a knock solution too. gotta make a degree wheel and bolt it to that distributor you gave me and document the timing marks so it can be programmed into the knock box. hopefully i can find some time to do that soon.

Brian

[turbovanman²]

hopefully i can find some time to do that soon.

Brian

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, :p

[Aries_Turbo]

eat it simon. :)

[Kreel]

I'm not pleased with the sudden decision shoved down the 3.0L section over at TD. It still may change back. Apparently the site owner is going to get a phone call tomorrow and decisions will be made...I won't hold my breath yet.

In any case, I think it's great that Brent is going to start bringing the 3.0L section back to life here. I'm totally fine posting here; there's just never been the traffic flow I'd like to see. Maybe we can make that change :)

[Bardo]

I like the 3.0 tec. I would have to have a fast 3.0 5 speed daytona 2nd or 3rd gen

[Directconnection]

Today I am an Egyptian.

I thought you had "Tiger Blood" and were a "Rockstar from Mars?"


Even though your insight and trials and tribulations are going to be very helpful, ya gotta remember: TM isn't about bringing in revenue... After all... the 2.2/2.5 and 3.0 are becoming long forgotten dinosaurs.

[Ondonti]

I'm not pleased with the sudden decision shoved down the 3.0L section over at TD. It still may change back. Apparently the site owner is going to get a phone call tomorrow and decisions will be made...I won't hold my breath yet.

In any case, I think it's great that Brent is going to start bringing the 3.0L section back to life here. I'm totally fine posting here; there's just never been the traffic flow I'd like to see. Maybe we can make that change :)

I really really dislike creating a section, building it up to 32,000 technical posts (the largest on the site during that timespan), bringing a crapload of traffic, they even have 2 vendors for 3.0 stuff, and then being treated like I have not been in the trenches and am easily replacable. REPLACE ME.
I got the 3.0 section created back when Rocky owned the site and I don't actually know who owns it now but even RickP just let us do our thing.

To get the idea of how successful the 3.0 section is, TD has a lot more traffic then T-M but the last 2 cars of the month have been...3.0's and I believe another one would have won this month.
There are a bunch of people who have copied my path now and there are a number of crazy 3.0 cars. There was NO following for anything but 3.0 boltons 6 years ago when I really started pushing things. Now instead of seeing bolton questions, our threads are about high end modifications in both n/a and turbo.

Anyone who remembers the old 3.0 world remembers how pitiful it all was and the mockery was well deserved. Even many 3.0 people shunned the idea of doing more then boltons.
That is why I give 2.2/2.5 people a hard time when they are holding onto ideas that may be holding them back, or using bad examples to make a decision. Been there, done that.

I really attribute the growth of the 3.0 following with my complete disclosure of everything I did in the past, so that people could learn lessons instead of just see results. I don't know that I have to do that anymore but it really helps to have data to work with instead of ideas. I took a select bit of advice from a few old members in 2002 and committed to testing these hypotheses out. When I show people everything I did wrong, and every corner that is not okay to cut, people gain confidence in trying projects with a previously unproven platform.
Every project I have done has provided useful information for others so they can save money on their projects, and avoid spending money twice. I feel many other people have taken that torch and carried it in the same fashion.

I have also supported SOHC 3.0 growth on 3000gt/Stealth websites. SOHC will always be a redheaded stepchild there but its amazing the projects that have popped up there. When naysayers have been silenced by results I have achieved, people are willing to try things without fear of being treated poorly for thinking a little different.
There are vendors making money off me right now because I made cam's cool, and they charge WAY TOO MUCH for regrinds, but the 12 valve people there trust the vendors. The same vendors all said it was a bad idea modding that engine years ago.
The 3.0 Dodge crowd is a much more savvy group on average, but the actual size of the 3/S is giant in comparison. We have some newbies who in a short period of time have learned the basics and are already "in charge" of answering the new guy questions. That really makes me proud.
I know you guys want to make fun of TD but the 3.0 people are really savvy and differ greatly from the average forum user there. 3.0 people are not "leftovers" from "the schism" so it makes a big difference in the group makeup. We don't all agree but we try hard to get things right.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Brent, you are just hung up on that 3.0 number :D lol

Hopefully I can get back on my solid roller rocker project soon. The shop is cleaning up slowly but surely...

[dodgeshadowchik]

The 3.0L crowd is like the 420A crowd in the DSM world. The turbo guys ALWAYS give the n/a people crap and tell them that they are wasting their time trying to make power out of the Chrysler (420a) platform. When in reality both sides go down the same path when building something that can handle quite a bit of power. (i.e forged internals, head work, ect.) Then once in a while you'll see someone who ended up making impressive #'s on a platform that people just write off. It's actually pretty neat to see... and it's those projects in which one learns more about how engines and turbos function.

I think what it comes down to is popularity. There is more aftermarket support for the factory turbo cars than the n/a ones. So it's just easier.

[Kreel]

I really really dislike creating a section, building it up to 32,000 technical posts (the largest on the site during that timespan), bringing a crapload of traffic, they even have 2 vendors for 3.0 stuff, and then being treated like I have not been in the trenches and am easily replacable. REPLACE ME.
I got the 3.0 section created back when Rocky owned the site and I don't actually know who owns it now but even RickP just let us do our thing.

To get the idea of how successful the 3.0 section is, TD has a lot more traffic then T-M but the last 2 cars of the month have been...3.0's and I believe another one would have won this month.
There are a bunch of people who have copied my path now and there are a number of crazy 3.0 cars. There was NO following for anything but 3.0 boltons 6 years ago when I really started pushing things. Now instead of seeing bolton questions, our threads are about high end modifications in both n/a and turbo.

Anyone who remembers the old 3.0 world remembers how pitiful it all was and the mockery was well deserved. Even many 3.0 people shunned the idea of doing more then boltons.
That is why I give 2.2/2.5 people a hard time when they are holding onto ideas that may be holding them back, or using bad examples to make a decision. Been there, done that.

I really attribute the growth of the 3.0 following with my complete disclosure of everything I did in the past, so that people could learn lessons instead of just see results. I don't know that I have to do that anymore but it really helps to have data to work with instead of ideas. I took a select bit of advice from a few old members in 2002 and committed to testing these hypotheses out. When I show people everything I did wrong, and every corner that is not okay to cut, people gain confidence in trying projects with a previously unproven platform.
Every project I have done has provided useful information for others so they can save money on their projects, and avoid spending money twice. I feel many other people have taken that torch and carried it in the same fashion.

I have also supported SOHC 3.0 growth on 3000gt/Stealth websites. SOHC will always be a redheaded stepchild there but its amazing the projects that have popped up there. When naysayers have been silenced by results I have achieved, people are willing to try things without fear of being treated poorly for thinking a little different.
There are vendors making money off me right now because I made cam's cool, and they charge WAY TOO MUCH for regrinds, but the 12 valve people there trust the vendors. The same vendors all said it was a bad idea modding that engine years ago.
The 3.0 Dodge crowd is a much more savvy group on average, but the actual size of the 3/S is giant in comparison. We have some newbies who in a short period of time have learned the basics and are already "in charge" of answering the new guy questions. That really makes me proud.
I know you guys want to make fun of TD but the 3.0 people are really savvy and differ greatly from the average forum user there. 3.0 people are not "leftovers" from "the schism" so it makes a big difference in the group makeup. We don't all agree but we try hard to get things right.

Hey, I don't blame you for getting angry over the whole thing. You've been in the 3.0L game twice as long as me and have brought 10x more to the table then anyone else I can think of. Without all your hard work, effort, and openness to share the 3.0L community would still be stuck with NA bolt-on cars. I know that for sure I wouldn't be where I am now. I'll finally be able to feel my own 3.0L boost this spring :eyebrows:

It's kind of funny over on TD how the 3.0L guys have their own little niche (3.0L mafia ftw!) unlike the rest of the sections which seem more scattered. The 3S sites are a completely different dynamic of their own. I still can't believe how much the vendors want to charge for a regrind...

[Ondonti]

Well a few of us are not so hung up on the 3.0 that we can't think outside that box. I would love an LS1 in my Starlet but I think a 3.8L 6g75 would fit much better and handle more power. It just wouldn't be as "cool." Just like twin turbo's hanging off it would be cool and look nice and symmetrical but it might not be the right choice. 200 rpms faster spool when you have a powerglide and 3.8L in a 1600 pound car might not make any sense for the cost and complexity it adds.
...I also would love to just have a good running Toyota 4k motor, megasquirt, little turbo, and getting crazy mileage. I even thought about doing a Dakar Montero setup in the Starlet, or a Corvette transmission in the rear for a road racer with good balance. Every little project idea begs the question: what is the point? Legal issues also ruin a lot of street legal racer ideas in our current car oppressive culture. I really moved past my original goals and have not found that moment where I feel satisfied.

6 years ago I wanted near 400hp when things were "perfect." and didn't care how fast I went. Now I am really interested in testing the limits of certain stock parts. Teetering over the edge of a theoretical cliff is pretty exciting for me. If I fall, I can reassess how close I can get and try it again. All without spending a lot of money. Its been cheaper then throwing money at something and never living up to my expectations. I had no real income for quite a few years and spent up all my savings. The forged piston motor and built heads and new turbo was really something I couldn't afford. I had to get help with my rent the month I cashed the machine shop check. I never afforded engine management to go along with it and was afraid to megasquirt. There are a few 3.0 projects of others that went belly up so I tried my best to minimize expenses so I could afford to continue. Instead of having a shop work over a new block (that had smaller clearances and actually sealed the oil rings up instead of being a plug fouling smoke show) for my forged pistons and balanced crank, I went with a stock motor. While the forged motor made good power in the end, having to remove the plugs constantly and either propane torch them or replace them to get the car started was really annoying. Then I tried a stock 10:1 shortblock and built heads. Then stock heads, mechanical rockers, and the same big cams on 10:1 shortblock. Been working with Ford Fed and Ed on valvetrain stuff and that is my next big interest. I have no idea what to do with my forged piston balanced motor because the pistons are such a low compression that they leave a lot of power on the table when running anything but pump gas. To get the most out of forged pistons I really need aftermarket rods, and why would I want all that and still use pistons that don't meet my current needs? I used to say that 3.0's need forged pistons but now I just say they need a bigger and more consistent ring gap with a safe tune.

I am more interesting in successfully revving to 8500 rpms right now then making a certain power amount. If we can do that, the power will be abundant. Especially doing all that on a stock shortblock. Its not necessary but the high rpms is really cool for n/a guys, especially going along with learning some intake manifold ideas from Honda guys and using Ed Kelly's expertise in cylinder heads.

For me, megasquirt is huge. I avoided it so long but now with the official release of install instructions for the 3.0, we can all feel comfortable building a megasquirt system. It feels nice being officially supported by a major ECU vendor.

The one of the most exotic n/a 3.0 projects going is being done by a v8 veteran who has been in the industry for a long time. I don't really know why he found the platform interesting. He does complete body restoration too and does an amazing job.

Marybeth, listen to the intro to Jeezy's "Soul Survivor" if you want to talk obsession. Guess what I hear in the background :P

[turbovanman²]

I know you guys want to make fun of TD but the 3.0 people are really savvy and differ greatly from the average forum user there. 3.0 people are not "leftovers" from "the schism" so it makes a big difference in the group makeup. We don't all agree but we try hard to get things right.

We do/did and now you know why. Again, not sure why you keep saying this site is full of 3.0L haters! :confused:




It's kind of funny over on TD how the 3.0L guys have their own little niche (3.0L mafia ftw!) unlike the rest of the sections which seem more scattered. The 3S sites are a completely different dynamic of their own. I still can't believe how much the vendors want to charge for a regrind...

Try me, I've offered them for years, :p

[BadAssPerformance]

I really really dislike creating a section, building it up to 32,000 technical posts (the largest on the site during that timespan), bringing a crapload of traffic, they even have 2 vendors for 3.0 stuff, and then being treated like I have not been in the trenches and am easily replacable. REPLACE ME.
I got the 3.0 section created back when Rocky owned the site and I don't actually know who owns it now but even RickP just let us do our thing.

Wow... thats a shame man. :(

Like we said, all (turbo) mopars are welcome here and I put turbo in () cuz I know we have several N/A powered members :thumb:

[Kreel]

Try me, I've offered them for years, :p

I did go digging through all that old info but I couldn't find any dyno results, nor could I find anyone running them. I'm sure they do provide a good performance increase, but so do the $180 Crower regrinds :p

Regardless, my new valvetrain setup could never use any regrind out there. It's a one of a kind set-up which I hope more people will try in the future.

[turbovanman²]

I did go digging through all that old info but I couldn't find any dyno results, nor could I find anyone running them. I'm sure they do provide a good performance increase, but so do the $180 Crower regrinds :p

Regardless, my new valvetrain setup could never use any regrind out there. It's a one of a kind set-up which I hope more people will try in the future.

Cjeix? sic, bought a set of the rv ones and loved them.

Sweet, any pics?

[Ondonti]

I did go digging through all that old info but I couldn't find any dyno results, nor could I find anyone running them. I'm sure they do provide a good performance increase, but so do the $180 Crower regrinds :p

Regardless, my new valvetrain setup could never use any regrind out there. It's a one of a kind set-up which I hope more people will try in the future.
Interested to see what you have going.
I don't know when I am ever going to get around to ordering that ls7 intake retainer I need. That still might be a dead end path. I hate that I am sorta stuck in-between the two main heights of beehive springs. I would really like a spring that i don't have to machine the head for but then I will have way too much pressure on the seat. I want a lot of room for lift without binding up too, which ls1 type springs will probably do. The ford springs....require machining the heads. Grr. I might go that path.

I will get my next cams ground based on how much lift I end up being able to fit and how much base circle I need gone.

[Kreel]

Cjeix? sic, bought a set of the rv ones and loved them.

Sweet, any pics?

Yep, Ed's doing all my port work/getting the machining done/double-checking everything. It'll be at least a few more weeks before I have them back in my hands. I'll post pics once I have them back.


Interested to see what you have going.
I don't know when I am ever going to get around to ordering that ls7 intake retainer I need. That still might be a dead end path. I hate that I am sorta stuck in-between the two main heights of beehive springs. I would really like a spring that i don't have to machine the head for but then I will have way too much pressure on the seat. I want a lot of room for lift without binding up too, which ls1 type springs will probably do. The ford springs....require machining the heads. Grr. I might go that path.

I will get my next cams ground based on how much lift I end up being able to fit and how much base circle I need gone.

Ed and I have been back and forth for a few weeks now. I made a few changes since I last posted on TD. Ed double-checked my measurements and I'll now be in the range to use LSx springs. I can also get away with more lift then I originally thought. Sorry Brent, but after Ed's done with these heads the flow #'s will kick your #'s square in the balls :eyebrows: Hehe, seriously though, this G54B/4G15/LSx combo is looking promising at this point.

[black86glhs]

My wife's 3.0 makes 182 Hp and 190 lb/ft of torque. I like the 3.0.

[Ondonti]

Yep, Ed's doing all my port work/getting the machining done/double-checking everything. It'll be at least a few more weeks before I have them back in my hands. I'll post pics once I have them back.



Ed and I have been back and forth for a few weeks now. I made a few changes since I last posted on TD. Ed double-checked my measurements and I'll now be in the range to use LSx springs. I can also get away with more lift then I originally thought. Sorry Brent, but after Ed's done with these heads the flow #'s will kick your #'s square in the balls :eyebrows: Hehe, seriously though, this G54B/4G15/LSx combo is looking promising at this point.

I think your direction is the direction I was trying to push that thread on Boosted Mopar. I am cool with a big regrind. I want a drop in spring. I am cool with modifying other parts but machining the head doesn't sound nice to me. I am also worried that not all valve seals are as low of a profile as we might hope. My ported head has strange looking seals that look like rubber cymbals on the intake side. OEM ones stick out farther.
If we can run LSX springs then it means we might be able to run the lift numbers I was talking about. I think these babies are going to be nasty with the setups we are talking about. So far beyond what anyone has ever done. I love the adjustable rockers, they fix my sloppy lifter problem, but they beg for a huge cam and a nasty spring setup. I am not happy with the loss of rocker ratio as it cost me 15+ degrees of duration and a good amount of lift.

Since I have had the heads off to repair them, I wanted to update the port job but I didn't have money at the time to knock out the guides to do what I wanted. I know Ed can beat the numbers, he can also get really high numbers that would actually perform poorly if he wanted to. He has tried to get quality to go along with quantity.
At some point this head will either be junk because I don't have enough margin left on the valves or will go on a lesser car. My machinist was lucky to be able to save the valves. Had to cut them at a 44 degree angle to try to save the margin.

Its not exactly enjoyable to think about replacing custom valves. I like the idea of easy to find parts.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Yeah I'd rather find some drop-in parts also, just haven't done any more research on it yet. Not enough hours in the day unfortunately :)

[Kreel]

My setup doesn't require any spring seat machining, nor any retainer modification. The only machining done is for the valves. If someone was to take it another step further with additional head machining it may be possible to see .600" lift with G54B valves. Custom valves that were a bit longer would also do the trick without the head machining.

[Ondonti]

With my heads I will probably be stuck using Ford 2 valve modular springs (PAC 1214)and machine the head. I don't really see another option unless I can get away with. It will allow .55" lift (Not that the valve seal will). I even thought its only 100# (same as the Schneider drop in springs) the smaller retainer should give it a strong advantage.
Or, Maybe the PAC 1215 LS1 spring, if I can get an install height above 1.65" (Still not room for .500" lift). My valves are a little longer then stock, so I hope for magic combined with the ls7 intake spring. I wish I could find the +.05 locks.

Cutting down the head to get more install height sorta screws up the point of drop in springs.
Probably not a big deal doing custom machining on those heads because they don't share enough in common with other people's heads to be helpful to anyone.
Me, I don't know that its a big deal to have larger seat loads. The only real wear issue we would have is the stem tip and adjuster.
Pretty sure 150# seat pressure will do a lot less damage then excessive valve lash.

The thing that bothers me is that if I get a nice hot cam, it might not be optimum for some +3 heads. I hate spending twice :P Of course, if I can still gain HP above 7500 rpms, i don't think I will worry too much. I could ask for a profile that tries to move the powerband real high (instead of retarding the cams).
I would love to see if this +3 head can peak at 8000...
BTW, you might want to look at an m112 with all that motor you got going on.
My friends 4.0L v8 1uz lexus (toyota) couldnt build more then a few pounds of boost with an M90 at 4400 feet. He slapped on an m112 or whatever is on the Ford Lightning.
Your 3.0 is probably going to move near as much air as his motor when you are done.

[Kreel]

BTW, you might want to look at an m112 with all that motor you got going on.
My friends 4.0L v8 1uz lexus (toyota) couldnt build more then a few pounds of boost with an M90 at 4400 feet. He slapped on an m112 or whatever is on the Ford Lightning.
Your 3.0 is probably going to move near as much air as his motor when you are done.

I've already considered an m112. It would physically fit under the hood but my concern is the intake adapter/TB which may be right in the firewall :confused2: A simpler solution would be to create an m112 hybrid. Basically it used the m112 snout in an m90 case with an adapter plate between the snout and the case (the m112 snout is considerably shorter then the m90 snout). There are a few hybrids out there but the plans for a vendor to sell them fell through. The L67 guys don't seem concerned about rev'ing that high hence why the m90 is sufficient for most of them. Also, anyone looking for big hp typically drops $$$ into a turbo set-up instead.

I'm hoping that all these changes will uncork the 3.0L and really let it flow. Basing my changes on what L67 guys do I'm going to have to drop pulley sizes almost right away. Or go back to a stock pulley (I'll be using my UDP to start).

[turbovanman²]

Brent, why are you stuck on revving the motor so high? You make boat loads of power already at decent rpm's?

[BadAssPerformance]

Brent, why are you stuck on revving the motor so high? You make boat loads of power already at decent rpm's?

I'm guessing... moar power! :D

[turbovanman²]

i'm guessing... Moar power! :d

lol!!!!!!!!!!

[Vigo]

Brent, why are you stuck on revving the motor so high? You make boat loads of power already at decent rpm's?

Because he's more interested in pushing the boundaries than hitting X number for it's own sake. It's generally also easier on a motor to make more putts-per-minute than more peak cylinder pressure. Thats why a 1000 hp turbo gas motor might weigh 400 lbs and a 1000 hp diesel motor weighs closer to 2000 lbs than 400, because the higher your peak pressures, the heavier you have to build it, the slower you have to spin it, the less power per torque. Vicious cycle. If a motor has the airflow and the valvetrain, rpm is the easiest direction to go in after a certain point.

[c2xejk]

With my heads I will probably be stuck using Ford 2 valve modular springs (PAC 1214)and machine the head. I don't really see another option unless I can get away with. It will allow .55" lift (Not that the valve seal will). I even thought its only 100# (same as the Schneider drop in springs) the smaller retainer should give it a strong advantage.
Or, Maybe the PAC 1215 LS1 spring, if I can get an install height above 1.65" (Still not room for .500" lift). My valves are a little longer then stock, so I hope for magic combined with the ls7 intake spring. I wish I could find the +.05 locks.

The limiting factor for the stock valve and LS1 retainer is the locks hitting the stem seal. The gain there is +0.040"

I recently confirmed that the chrome moly retainers from Alex's Parts (ebay) are +.050" compared to the stock LS1 retainer....

The 3.3L spring is drop in with the exception of cutting down the locks. It also has 100# seat pressure on our heads (with the retainers mentioned above.)


The thing that bothers me is that if I get a nice hot cam, it might not be optimum for some +3 heads. I hate spending twice :P Of course, if I can still gain HP above 7500 rpms, i don't think I will worry too much. I could ask for a profile that tries to move the powerband real high (instead of retarding the cams).


Hopefully in a week I will have an idea how much valve overlap is tolerable with the +3 valves.

[shelbymonster]

im waiting for a turbo sbec cal for my 3.0 , i have 91 to rebuild with a 4speed , would make a nice beater twin turbo engine

[turbovanman²]

Because he's more interested in pushing the boundaries than hitting X number for it's own sake. It's generally also easier on a motor to make more putts-per-minute than more peak cylinder pressure. Thats why a 1000 hp turbo gas motor might weigh 400 lbs and a 1000 hp diesel motor weighs closer to 2000 lbs than 400, because the higher your peak pressures, the heavier you have to build it, the slower you have to spin it, the less power per torque. Vicious cycle. If a motor has the airflow and the valvetrain, rpm is the easiest direction to go in after a certain point.

Good points but RPM also has its wear and durability factors.

[bakes]

im waiting for a turbo sbec cal for my 3.0 , i have 91 to rebuild with a 4speed , would make a nice beater twin turbo engine

Im in the boat.

[Kreel]

Good points but RPM also has its wear and durability factors.

This isn't true for all engines, but with a 3.0L I'll take a stab at an RPM failure over a failure from too much torque. I'd take 600/400 hp/trq spinning to 8k over 400/600 hp/trq spinning to 5k any day of the week. That rod will bend from torque LONG before shooting out the block from rev'ing too high.

[turbovanman²]

This isn't true for all engines, but with a 3.0L I'll take a stab at an RPM failure over a failure from too much torque. I'd take 600/400 hp/trq spinning to 8k over 400/600 hp/trq spinning to 5k any day of the week. That rod will bend from torque LONG before shooting out the block from rev'ing too high.

I guess you guys might find out, :p

[Vigo]

That rod will bend from torque LONG before shooting out the block from rev'ing too high.

I dont know if i believe that, but luckily we have the higher revving DOHC 3S community to look to for those answers.

[Kreel]

I guess you guys might find out, :p

There's a few of us on target for this year to start rev'ing to 7k+. I hope at least one of us will push the limits :thumb:


I dont know if i believe that, but luckily we have the higher revving DOHC 3S community to look to for those answers.

Yep, that's why I do believe that. Our DOHC cousins use the same rods. I know that after 600 ft/lbs of torque you're on borrowed time as far as bending a rod. However, I can't recall a single RPM related rod failure in my years of reading through 3si. IIRC Matt M pushed a bone stock 3.0L DOHC into the 9's rev'ing well past 9k :nod:

[Ondonti]

He is right on about the rods. The real danger is actually the oil pump gear. There are billet upgrades for that, and the bad gears are all replacement pumps from a certain time period (OEM) that was maybe 3-4 years ago.

If I did grenade an oil pump gear, I would consider it job well done. I would have been reving over 7,000 but at 7000 the 190,000 mile valve springs with 278 cam were starting to float. That was a stock head with the mechanical rollers.
I am more afraid of unproven valvspring setups dropping a valve then anything else failing at high rpm. Probably zero problems as our valves are so much smaller then an LSx. No reason to be afraid but unproven is unproven.


Ed, cool about the retainers. I think I will drop the ls7 intake retainer idea then :) No point pursuing that at this point. Not getting the head together anytime soon but I did buy some tiny drill bits so I can finally do the oil mod on the mechanical rollers. The heads are going on my daily with the cams still installed. Be nice to put some mileage on them. I will say that its amazing what even stock heads will do with cams and megasquirt. I will really hate having the OEM computer in the Spirit with these rockers and cams.

I need another 12 mechanical rollers...after I get a million other projects going.

[Vigo]

im dealing with my sbec2 tuning with an AEM FIC. Of course i havent started yet. Do you plan to megasquirt the spirit?

[Ondonti]

Depending on how much grief the car gives me. I might drop in the MSII and go MSIII for the Duster. Only having one functional injector driver is not making me happy.
MSIII can go sequential and would be good for big injectors.

The big end of the rods won't come apart at 9500 rpms with oem bolts so 8500 is cake. Worst I have seen is 9700 rpms on a stock rod (used rod, used bearings, put together into a stock shortblock that ran 151mph) that spun a bearing after being beaten on. Bearing spun later that nigh. Oil pump, pressure, etc not verified good. I seriously doubt any clearances were measured when puttting those used parts together. Very likely that oil pressure was down or that the crank was not in tip top shape.
Spun bearings in a properly assembled 6g72 have only ever been correlated with oil supply issues. The mitsubishi oil pans and pickups are pretty finicky. Its important to verify you have a good pickup and the screen is not smashed. DOHC guys worry about dents in the oil pan but I think that really only matters if the dent messes up the area around the pickup. They way they talk about it, it turns into something not quite logical. It is amazing how many people run their motors low on oil and then want to blame something else for their spun bearing. I know the 2.x 4 cylinders are spun bearing prone on a stock oil pan on a high G long turn.

[RoadWarrior222]

The big end of the rods won't come apart at 9500 rpms with oem bolts so 8500 is cake. Worst I have seen is 9700 rpms on a stock rod (used rod, used bearings, put together into a stock shortblock that ran 151mph) that spun a bearing after being beaten on. Bearing spun later that nigh. Oil pump, pressure, etc not verified good. I seriously doubt any clearances were measured when puttting those used parts together. Very likely that oil pressure was down or that the crank was not in tip top shape.
Spun bearings in a properly assembled 6g72 have only ever been correlated with oil supply issues. The mitsubishi oil pans and pickups are pretty finicky. Its important to verify you have a good pickup and the screen is not smashed.

This is why I think the big end is oversized and I could use a SR20DET rod on an offset grind of 48mm to stroke it by 4mm. But that build would be aimed at getting piston velocity up a tad at lower RPM, closer to "perfect" rod ratio, and making a gutsy NA, with higher compression on G54B pistons.

Valve float and lift doesn't worry me yet, I'll be changing the dynamics of the stock valve such that it behaves different. It's a mod that is said is equivalent to a 15% bigger valve, but what it really does is make like there's 15% less valve blocking the hole... which is 15% less drag pulling against the spring. Don't know if it's all that good for boost though.

[Ondonti]

Modifying the crank might be fine for n/a but the amount of work....you might want to look into a 74 or 75 block.
The most extreme crank mod I have seen is a 74 crank ground down to fit a 72, but I don't know if you can get it to fit into the 2 bolt block because of differences in the girdle design (less room for crank throw?). It requires clearancing on the 72 girdle even in 4 bolt version.

[87turbodance]

I recently confirmed that the chrome moly retainers from Alex's Parts (ebay) are +.050" compared to the stock LS1 retainer....

The 3.3L spring is drop in with the exception of cutting down the locks. It also has 100# seat pressure on our heads (with the retainers mentioned above.)



Hopefully in a week I will have an idea how much valve overlap is tolerable with the +3 valves.

I purchased a set of these retainers and locks and will be installing with some 3.3 beehives next week on my new heads. I'm planning for reground cams and solid rockers in the near future.

http://www.alexsparts.com/products/LS1-BEEHIVE-VALVE-SPRING-RETAINERS-LS-SERIES-GEN-III-VORTEC-8MM.html

[Ondonti]

I purchased a set of these retainers and locks and will be installing with some 3.3 beehives next week on my new heads. I'm planning for reground cams and solid rockers in the near future.

http://www.alexsparts.com/products/LS1-BEEHIVE-VALVE-SPRING-RETAINERS-LS-SERIES-GEN-III-VORTEC-8MM.html

So I am guessing you didn't buy it directly from them since it says not available. Ebay?

[87turbodance]

So I am guessing you didn't buy it directly from them since it says not available. Ebay?

I bought directly from alex's site because he was sold out on Ebay. It also looks like I bought the last set off his website, unfortunately. I asked him when he expects more but he didn't know when. He did say that his supplier will be raising the prices on the next batch he orders.

I don't know where to order them from now. They seemed to go really fast.

[Ondonti]

spectacular

[Irocelectric93]

I just found this thread. Actually I have really considered putting my build on here and just forgetting the other site at least for the most part for quite a while. My build needs to be consolidated as it is. As for you Brent you've been doing this 3.0 game for a while. I believe you finished your turbo 3.0 when you were like what 22? You've always answered my questions and done what others won't and thats not give up and forget about what they said was "possible" or what "could" be done. I've seen the 3.0 grow so much fanbase from around 04 or 05 to now. Shoot I remember when m90 finished his MS install....I was so pumped for the 3.0 community. When Brent finally got those post 500 hp dyno numbers I drooled. Glad to see the 3.0 more accepted here. I at least never wanted to step on anybody's toes ...i mean hey i drive a 2.4 turbo daily :) but my heart beats for turbo 3.0's

[Vigo]

Wait thats not the same guy that put a positive displacement pump in front of a closed throttle body and couldnt figure out why it was popping the hose off, is it? :p hehehehe best forgotten, perhaps..

Make a new, better, concise build thread! I dont know if your other one is bad, but TM needs more 3.0 action!

[Irocelectric93]

Wait thats not the same guy that put a positive displacement pump in front of a closed throttle body and couldnt figure out why it was popping the hose off, is it? :p hehehehe best forgotten, perhaps..

Make a new, better, concise build thread! I dont know if your other one is bad, but TM needs more 3.0 action!

Not me. My Daytona was rear ended by a girl not paying attention....pushed me into an oncoming car and totaled it. Yeah that was like what...3 or 4 years ago. I've been collecting parts and fixing rust blah blah blah. I need to finish my MS3 install before anything else happens. Although i can say that my coilovers are done :) thanks to Rich's camber plates.

[Vigo]

Nah i was talking about the other guy you mentioned, m90? Sorry to hear about your car.

[Irocelectric93]

Nah M90 got his car running on MSII a while ago. I think he just ran out of money and time for the car and sold it. As for my car no worries. I'll get it running again eventually. Its just a slow process for me because i change my mind so often about what i want to do with it and stuff.

[Reaper1]

All I have to say is..welcome to where the wild things are! LOL :thumb:

[RoadWarrior222]

Its just a slow process for me because i change my mind so often about what i want to do with it and stuff.
Heh me too, I want an all motor 3.0, I want a twin turbo 3.0, I want an all out fuel economy 3.0, I wanna add cam phasing, and I want my van stock, lowered, and raised, with aero mods, with a different custom theme, I could own 6 of them and a couple of daytonas and an L body swap... ... ...

[Ondonti]

Well I now have a 200+ picture thread that covers building a complete 3.0 engine and revamping a turbo setup with a holset turbo.

[Reaper1]

Well I now have a 200+ picture thread that covers building a complete 3.0 engine and revamping a turbo setup with a holset turbo.

Umm...link!?

[Vigo]

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?57088-The-Holset-he341-3.0L/page2&highlight=

[Reaper1]

Thanks! :thumb: